Golam Shafiuddin

Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Bangladesh
A Policy Making Perspective
Golam Shafiuddin
Department of Public Administration
University of Dhaka
Ph.D Course Supervisors
Professor Mahbubur Rahman

Professr Dr. Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah
Dhaka University Institutional Repository
Acknowledgements
It is a great pleasure to express my heartfelt thanks and profound gratitude to my respected

teacher and Ph.D supervisor Professor Mahbubur Rahman, Department of Public
Administration, University of Dhaka & co-supervisor Professor Dr. Nazmul Ahsan
Kalimullah, Vice Chancellor, Begum Rokeya University of Rangpur for their prudent
guidance, enormous intellectual support, inspiration and constant supervision in carrying out
this research work.
I would also like to express my gratitude and thanks to my beloved and respected teacher
Dr. Salahuddin Md. Aminuzzaman, Professor, Department of Public Administrations,
University of Dhaka & my nephew Dr. AKM Mahmudul Haque, Associate Professor of
Political Science, University of Rajshahi for their invaluable advice & comments time to
time. I am very much indebted to all of the respondents (including late lyricist, composer and
folk singer Bari Siddiqui) who have participated in my questionnaire survey without
hesitation and for giving their constructive advice and suggestions. I am also grateful to my
family members including better half Israt Jahan for their emotional support especially to my
daughter Mrittika for her criticism, encouragement and technical support during the whole
period of my research work. Arif Mahmud, a fine artist-designer and my colleague Deputy
Director, Blue Economy Cell of the Government of Bangladesh also deserves thanks for the
same. My friend of New Zealand Dr. J E Effron certainly deserves endless thanks and
appreciation for his valuable discussions and consultations.
I am thankful to other Faculty Members including my previous thesis supervisor Professor

Dr. Aka Firowz Ahmad for his initial guidance and setting my aspiration & all the concerned
staffs of the Department of Public Administration of the University of Dhaka for their whole-
hearted cooperation and full time support and assistance during the study.
Finally, my special thanks to the university authority for all the arrangements made in
facilitating the preparation and completion of this thesis.
Golam Shafiuddin
Ph.D Researcher
Department of Public Administration March 2018
University of Dhaka
ii
Abstract
Creativity and innovation have no limits but endless benefits. As a result, protection,
promotion and management of Intellectual Property (IP) are becoming instruments for
national development. This development is made possible by: (1) globalization of trade and
commerce and (2) the emerging knowledge-based world economy.
A part of the revolutionary changes symbolized by the creation of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in 1995-96 was a new international IP system. The Berne Convention
remained the basic law, with many amendments. First, there was the WIPO Treaty, which
applied the Berne Convention to digital works such as computer software and e-books. Then
there was the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS),
administered by the WTO. Among other things, TRIPS required countries to make their laws
effective to enforce the rights in it.
In response to this new obligation, Bangladesh enacted the Copyright Act, 2000 (amended in
2005), Trademark Act, 2009, and Geographical Indication Act, 2013. Yet there is no fully
thought-through policy on IP. These laws were patched on to the old copyright and
trademark law left by the British, from the 1800s. There was little awareness of rights under
these Acts and thus little enforcement. Thus, Bangladesh became one of the worst countries
of the world for ‘piracy’. In 2010, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) identified
Bangladesh as the world’s 2nd worst software-pirating country. In 2013, Bangladesh stood
130th out of 142 countries in terms of their enabling environment to innovation and their
innovation outputs.
Present study was an attempt to find out the causes of problems by applying various research
methods like content analysis and interview. Several in-depth face-to-face interviews were
conducted with various professionals like poet, writer, scientist, filmmaker-producer,
painter, singer-lyricist-composer, theater worker-director and performer, advocate, police
officer, government high officials, agency heads, NGO worker, social activist and so on.
It was concluded that it is high time to develop an Intellectual Property Right policy because
we want to transform Bangladesh into an innovative economy. An innovative economy first
respect and protects new ideas: that is the essence of the function of IP law. In this regard,
Government should work to develop a national framework for creation and protection of
IPRs, of which copyright is the first and foremost, which should continuously evolve toward
meeting global standards.
iii
Abbreviations
AQSIQ: Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (China)
BSA: Business Software Alliance
CMO: Collective Management Organization
CEAC: Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council (India)
CPPA: Computer Program Protection Act (Korea)
DPDT: Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
GD: General Diary
GAC: General Administration of Customs (China)
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
IPR: Intellectual Property Right
ICI: Imperial Chemical Industries (UK)
IPAB: Intellectual Property Association of Bangladesh
IPA: Intellectual Property Alliance
IPO: Intellectual Property Organization (Pakistan)
KIPO: Korean Industrial Property Office
KFDA: Korean Food & Drug Administration
LDC: Least Developed Country
MNCs: Multinational Corporations
MDTCA: Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (Malaysia)
NCA: National Copyright Administration (China)
NGO: Non Government Organization
PIPRA: Intellectual Property Rights Association (Pakistan)
PCT: Patent Cooperation Treaty
RRO: Reprographic Right Organization
RAB: Rapid Action Battalion
iv
SIPO: State Intellectual Property Office (China)
SAIC: State Administration for Industry and Commerce (China)
SIT: Special Inspection Team (Korea)
TRIPS: Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
USTR: The US Trade Representative
WTO: World Trade Organization
WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization
v
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 page no
Introduction ................................. 03
1.1 Identification of the Problem ................................. 06
1.2 Significance of the Problem ................................. 07
1.3 Review of Literature ................................. 08
1.4 Objectives of the Research ................................. 13
1.5 Research Questions ................................. 13
1.6 Research Hypothesis ................................. 13
1.7 Research Methodology ................................. 14
1.8 Scope and Limitations of the Research ................................. 15
1.9 Analytical Framework ................................. 16
1.10 Chapter Plan ................................. 17
Chapter 2
Property and Intellectual property
2.1 What Property means ................................. 18
2.2 What is Intellectual Property? ................................. 18
2.3 Conceptual / Theoretical Framework of the Study ................................. 19
2.3.1 IPR: Its Historical Perspective ................................. 34
2.3.2 Basic Concepts ................................. 39
Copyright, Traditional Knowledge, Industrial Property, Patent, Industrial Design, Plant Variety,
Trademark, Trade Secret, Geographical Indication: Concept and Practice
Chapter 3
Country Perspective
3.1 India ................................. 46
3.2 Pakistan ................................. 48
3.3 China ................................. 51
3.4 Korea ................................. 56
3.5 Malaysia ................................. 61
Chapter 4
IPR: An Empirical Overview of Bangladesh Situation
4.1 Copyright ................................. 68
4.2 Trademark ................................. 84
4.3 Patent and Design ................................. 86
4.4 Geographical Indication ................................. 98
4.5 Miscellaneous ................................. 116
Chapter 5
Empirical Observations ................................. 129
Chapter 6
Policy Options / Recommendations ................................. 130
Conclusion ................................. 133
Bibliography ................................. 134

List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Information on Copyright Registration in 2014-15

Table 2: Results of Questionnaire Survey
Figures
Figure1: Distribution of different items of copyright in the year 2014-15

Figure 2: Spreading of Responses
2
Introduction
Background
Father of the modern science Albert Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than
knowledge1”. Einstein’s preference for imagination over knowledge is a starting point as
because Intellectual property (IP) is based on the power of imagination. Einstein understood
that it is the ability to stand on an existing foundation of accepted knowledge and see beyond
to the next frontier of discovery that is the source of personal, cultural and economic
advancement.
Intellectual Property (IP) refers to creations of the human mind. A creative work, an original
expression or technical solutions to a problem can all be creations of value. These creations
of the mind, when duly protected, can become valuable intellectual property, with a market
value.
Creativity and innovation have no limits but endless benefits. As a result, protection,
promotion and management of Intellectual Property (IP) are becoming instruments for
national development. This development is made possible by: (1) globalization of trade and
commerce and (2) the emerging knowledge-based world economy.
In this era of globalization and knowledge-based trade, IP, and the rights to it, become issues
of national development and even economic security. This happens because IP law gives the
creator of IP (and, in terms of global competition, his country) a monopoly over the use of the
IP for a period of time. That monopoly gives time to create a huge competitive advantage.
Mere reference to some IP which has been used in almost every developed and developing
country for a generation will illustrate the point: Microsoft, McDonald’s, Xerox
(photocopiers), Coca-Cola, ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries).
1
For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world,
and all there ever will be to know and understand (internet).
3
From this, we can understand why America and Europe have so aggressively tried to enforce
IP rights of their citizens in recent years, even trying economic assistance and trade relations
to a country’s IP enforcement record. They have even tried to shut down and jail small local
producers in developing countries who try to copy American or European products:
notwithstanding that their poor local customers could never pay the world market price of the
original products, even if they spent all their assets trying! But 200 years back, at the
beginning of their modern literature, the situation of the civilized world was totally different;
their creative writers were massively deprived. Though it took a long time, finally they
overcame the legacy (Annex-A) of deprivation.
Thus, the Berne Convention, which started in 1886 as a rather innocent and moral campaign
to assure that writers in one European country got royalties for sale of their books in another,
has now become a prowling tiger, with 3 enforcement mechanisms, and 180 countries
obliged to conform their laws to its rights and principles. Bangladesh should be aware that it
is only one of 180 examples in this regard and does not make its IP law and policy by itself,
only to please itself.
On the other hand, if Bangladesh desires to promote its cultural heritage like Nakshi Kantha,
Nakshi Pitha, Jamdani, Black Goats, local varieties of plants and genetic resources etc. it
should obviously adapt appropriate IP system. Otherwise, there are possibilities of losing the
resources due to misappropriation of those resources.
Yet Bangladesh is also unaware of the opportunities of this system. For example, Bangladesh
is one of the top exporters of pharmaceutical products to the developing world. If
Bangladeshi companies reinvested their huge profits in developing original new medicines,
like the famous multinational (western) drug companies do, they could create Berne
monopolies for a range of drugs even in developed countries. Instead, they prefer the cheap
and risk-free, fast-profit alternative of copying the western drugs with cut-price ingredients to
make them affordable in poor countries. If they sold these in developed countries, they might
get into Berne trouble with the IP owners of the original drugs. Consumers in western
countries would never pay less for cheaper ingredients in something that could destroy their
4
lives like a pharmaceutical product. But gradually situation has been changed; western world
opened their market for Bangladeshi products.
Again, some Bangladeshi companies are seeing the blue horizon. Pran mango juice, original,
of export quality, at an attractive price, is on more and more Middle Eastern tables at
breakfast. We need only add a mention of the ubiquitous Bangladeshi T-shirt in Europe and
America. IP law makes it possible for Bangladeshi companies to establish these market
niches and develop reliable, growing sources of dollar revenue in place of construction labor.
In that, it is a solution as well as a problem.
To comply with the international obligations Bangladesh also has introduced Copyright law.
But in 2010, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) identified Bangladesh as the world’s 2 nd
worst software-pirating country. In 2013, Bangladesh stood 130th out of 142 countries in
terms of their enabling environment to innovation and their innovation outputs.
This study considers how Bangladesh can improve its IP law and policy. Following are some
key issues to start from:
a) The policy and legal framework are weak;
b) Lack of budget for an adequate infrastructure and staff in government offices hinders
effective administration of IP law;
c) Lack of awareness on IPRs;
d) Enforcement of IPRs, an essential element of the TRIPS Agreement, remains weak.
As IP rights are private in nature, the enforcement of these rights is primarily a matter for the
individual owners. Yet this often cannot be done in any meaningful or effective way without
the support of the governmental authorities. Law and policy must be usable and effective for
the private IP rights owners, or their rights will remain on the bookshelf. The court system
must be accessible and must follow the law. Enforcement and the road to obtaining decisions
5
must not be frustrated by corruption. The law must be clear and comprehensive enough to
obviate protracted litigation. Those wishing to register IP rights must have efficient and user-
friendly systems to avail.
Above all, we can say that it is high time to develop and update IPR policy because we want
to transform Bangladesh into an innovative economy. An innovative economy first respect
and protects new ideas: that is the essence of the function of IP law. In this regard,
Government should work to develop a national framework for creation and protection of
IPRs, of which copyright is the first and foremost, which should continuously evolve toward
meeting global standards.
1.1 Identification of the Problem

A part of the revolutionary changes symbolized by the creation of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in 1995-96 was a new international IP system. The Berne Convention
remained the basic law, with many amendments. First, there was the WIPO Treaty, which
applied the Berne Convention to digital works such as computer software and e-books. Then
there was the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS),
administered by the WTO. Among other things, TRIPS required countries to make their laws
effective to enforce the rights in it.
In response to this new obligation, Bangladesh enacted the Copyright Act, 2000, Trademark
Act, 2009 (Annex-B), and Geographical Indication Act, 2013(Annex-C). Yet there is no fully
thought-through policy on IP. These laws were patched on to the old copyright and trademark
law left by the British, from the 1800s. There was little awareness of rights under these Acts
and thus little enforcement. Thus, Bangladesh became one of the worst countries of the world
for ‘piracy’.
We should note here that most of the beneficiaries of TRIPS and international IP rights have
been the developed countries. They have the capital and the technology to make the new
products. They have the legal and political resources to insist on their monopolies. Most
Bangladeshi farmers, students, writers or artists have no idea that copyright or patent law
could protect them.
6
The other little-discussed fact about IP law is that Bangladeshis can never comply with it, for
reasons having nothing to do with IP. The position of an American company like Microsoft is
that a Bangladeshi should buy Windows with dollars, not get a ‘crack copy’. A Thai could do
it. A Singaporean could do it. Maybe by now even an Indian could do it. Their countries
have, like most in the world, free movement of currencies. They could even get an
international credit card from their local bank to do it. A Bangladeshi could not do it.
Bangladesh is on that dwindling list of ex-Communist countries like North Korea, Cuba and
Laos that have blocked currencies: the Taka is not freely convertible. To change Taka to
dollars, or any other currency, needs the permission of the Bangladesh Bank. So, if you are a
Bangladeshi, unless you have an uncle in London who could buy it for you, or an uncle in the
Bangladesh Bank (or elsewhere who can pay them enough to interest the Bank officers) who
could get the permission for you, you could never actually buy Windows. You have to get the
crack copy and be labeled (with your country) a ‘pirate’.
So the problem is that international IP law is really not suitable to or operative in Bangladesh.
The laws are there but they are unusable. The challenge is to make Bangladeshis aware of
their rights and to change all the policies and laws that make it impossible for IP law to work
in Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, domestic law on IP is really not good enough for Bangladeshis either.
Bangladesh's legal and institutional framework for IPR protection is still in an embryonic
stage. Most of the laws are based on British statutes and common law, before 1947. Patent
law, from 1911, is wholly outdated. Related laws, such as those relating to design, utility,
integrated circuit and layout design, are yet to be created. Recent legislation on copyrights
and trademarks merely amended older laws.
1.2 Significance of the Problem

Bangladesh has a growing economy. Intellectual Property (IP) has become a significant
factor in productivity and economic growth. Such an environment requires a strong structure
of IP law and policy which protects and encourages new ideas and technologies that become
marketable products. Bangladesh is missing out on many international opportunities for lack
of awareness and enforcement of the IP rights of Bangladeshi people and companies.
7
Bangladeshis cannot access many new technologies which are created and owned elsewhere.
All of this must hamper the economic development of Bangladesh over time and make the
country poorer than it would otherwise be.
So, for economic development and justice, Bangladesh needs a strong IP policy. Awareness,
enforcement and use are the missing cornerstones of such a policy.
1.3 Review of Literature

There has been no comprehensive book about IP in Bangladesh. Following is a summary of
some of the major publications about IP law and policy in Bangladesh:
Manzurur Rahman (2010) wrote a basic book on copyright practice in Bangladesh. It

discussed the origin of copyright concept, elements of copyright, types and timeframe of
rights, concept of related rights, types of related rights, copyright related economic activities,
different conventions and agreements, the related organizations, related international days,
some widely used words, background of different laws and the copyright situation in
Bangladesh as a whole2.
Mahfuzullah’s (2002) pioneering study described intellectual property, evolution of the

process of patents and the components of the TRIPS Agreement. The study further assessed
the fallout of ministerial meetings like the Singapore meeting in 1996, the Geneva meeting in
1998, the Seattle meeting in 1999, and the Doha meeting in 2001.
The research alarmingly noticed that various rice genes were being flown out of the country
by some academics and researchers, without being aware of the potential long-term
consequences. Such export of genetic material could seriously challenge the indigenous
cropping and patent rights. Subsequently, it could affect this age-old agricultural crop in
Bangladesh. Other countries, like Turkey, Japan, France, and over 120 countries have
restricted such export of indigenous varieties of agriculture products.
2
ingvb, gbRyiæi, eyw×e„wËK m¤ú` I evsjv‡`‡ki KwcivBU AvBb, aªæec`, XvKv, 2010|
8
Most important of all, according to Mahfuzullah, is the commitment of the political

leadership to protect national interests in a changing global system. The political leadership
of the country needs to be more sensitized to the impact of the TRIPS Agreement and take a
pro-active position. Bangladesh needs to acquire the skills to protect it and succeed in the
new globalizing world economy of multilateral relations.
He has argued that the TRIPS Agreement is not a mere legal document but has significant
ethical, economic, environmental and social implications as well as moral and ethical
concerns. From a socio-cultural perspective researchers noted that the IP regimes of the North
appear to be the extension of ‘individualistic culture’ and do not seem respect the ‘communal
rights and inter-generation innovations’ of the South.
He further argued that international rules that govern intellectual property and the
management of biodiversity are not static but dynamic. More critically, the researchers noted
that, because of the pressure and commercial interest of their private sectors, Northern
governments are unlikely to bring in or support any significant change in the TRIPS. In other
words, IP needs to be seen and understood from a ‘global political-economic perspective’3.
Milan Hossain (2012) gives an extensive summary of IP rights in Bangladesh under the
relevant legislation. He finds that the laws are in compliance with international laws and
agreements but laments that Bangladesh has one of the world’s highest levels of piracy.
Speaking on behalf of the Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Hossain lays out a specific
and workable set of actions to attack piracy, including establishing an anti-piracy force and
establishing a cell in the Customs Service to intercept pirated imports and exports. He calls
for raiding photocopy shops and optical disc plants and shutting down pirates. Finally, he
calls for Introduction to copyright papers at Universities, seminars, copyright courts,
alternatives to litigation for infringement cases and special teams of law enforcement
agencies for copyright enforcement.
3
Ullah, Mahfuz, Intellectual Property Rights and Bangladesh, BELA and CFSD, Dhaka, June 2002.
9
Hossain’s ideas are well-researched and well-thought-through. The Government, in 2015,

later implemented some of his ideas, like raiding photocopying shops and shutting down
pirates. If implemented, Bangladesh could have a big impact in reducing piracy.
Of course, as discussed in the introduction of this paper, Bangladeshis are often unable to
purchase IP protected products at world prices. Such a campaign against piracy could destroy
the available alternatives and leave Bangladeshi consumers with nothing to buy. Also,
Hossain does not really explain why piracy is so high in Bangladesh and what systematic
measures are necessary to make IP law workable in the Bangladeshi context. Hossain’s work
is a comprehensive summary of the legal technical side of IP law. It is not policy oriented and
does not really lay out the social causes of piracy. This research will move beyond the rules
described by Hossain and propose policy alternatives more consistent with the broader
context4.
Md. Milan Hossain (2012), in another article shows which Intellectual Properties have been
developed in Bangladesh, how their protection is being ensured, the drawbacks of the
existing laws, and solutions to the present problems to ensure better IP protection.
In findings, the author stated that intellectual property laws in Bangladesh are not very rich.
Some of them are not compatible with international treaties and conventions. Some of them
are not maintainable with the digital-based society. We have no laws on trade secrets, unfair
competition, geographical indication (but later enacted) and layout design (topographies) of
integrated circuits still today. Administrative capacity of DPDT (Department of Patents,
Designs and Trademarks) and Copyright Office are very poor due to manual system, shortage
of number of officers and staff, expert on intellectual property. Besides, awareness among the
people is very low. Copyright piracy is very frequent; here its rate is the highest amongst the
world5.
4
Hossain, Md. Milan, Present Situation of Copyright Protection in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Research
Publication Journal, July-August 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2, Dhaka, 2012.
5
Hossain, Md. Milan, Intellectual Properties: Bangladesh Approach, International Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Volume 1, Issue 2, Dhaka, November, 2012.
10
Md. Azizur Rahman (2013) in a descriptive paper prepared by focused on how lack of
awareness makes the nation loser. It shows that extensive infringement of intellectual
property rights (IPR) has discouraged creativity and deprived artistic works of their economic
value and protection of originality.
Although signs of improvement are evident in various aspects of our economy, our creative
and cultural industry is still at a nascent stage. The balance of power is still tilted in favor of
publishers and phonogram producers.
There are not enough precedents in our industry guaranteeing the rights of the author/creator.
Even the late great novelist Humayun Ahmed did not sign any concrete agreements with
publishers to ensure the copyright of his books. Therefore, there is a general lack of
confidence, awareness and professional support for creators and authors, which is being
exploited by those engaged in piracy.
The ominous dark shadow of piracy has not only affected the authors but the publishers as
well. They too are taking a huge hit from piracy in terms of finance and goodwill. Moreover,
the industry itself has failed to play a potent role in addressing the issue of piracy: a
negligible response is received when personalities from the creative industry are asked to
participate for this cause. The lack of response is also evident in that the creative industry has
been unable to establish a Collective Management Organization (CMO) which would further
the interest of creators in protecting their rights.
Thus, people involved in piracy are taking the advantage of this lack of co-ordination in our
creative industry and are continuing to sell counterfeit products.
For example the songs that are played in shopping malls without the prior permission of the
creators are also an act of copyright violation of which the creator does not have proper
knowledge. There is also a lack of understanding among the common people regarding
copyrights. Very few people understand that selling the pirated material they purchase from
footpaths and other stores is a crime. The general perceptions among people about pirated
materials are that these materials are cheap and are sold in front of law enforcement agencies
openly, so it is not a crime and considered a normal activity. Also, the legal framework of the
11
nation does not provide adequate support to innovators. Finally Rahman’s paper calls for a
collective effort to trigger a paradigm shift, both in terms of perception and practice6.
Professor Dr. M. Kamal Uddin in the report (published by a Project of WIPO) ‘Innovation
and Intellectual Property Policy and Strategy for Bangladesh’ has attempted to formulate the
IP strategy as a comprehensive national document comprising of a set of measures to be
implemented by the Government to encourage and facilitate the effective creation,
development, management and protection of IP at national level of Bangladesh.
The study focused on some development and protection necessities for the development of
Bangladesh, such as:
a) Develop IPR policy to transform Bangladesh into an innovative economy;
b) Promoting respect for intellectual property and stimulating creation of intellectual
property rights;
c) Strengthening protection of IP;
d) Strengthening of the institutional set up to improve enforcement of intellectual
property rights;
e) Protection of industrial designs;
f) Protection of plant varieties;
g) Protection of trade secrets;
h) Facilitating commercialization of intellectual property rights;
i) Development of indigenous technologies etc7.
Bazlul H. Khondker and Sonia Nowshin (2013) attempt to assess the current status of the
national IP system and find a number of obstacles on the way of IP driven development.
But their paper widened its scope a lot, like current state of IP administration in detailed,
features of national cultural policy, names of all agencies of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs
etc. Besides, the paper discussed the Agriculture policy, Education policy, Industrial policy,
6
Rahman, Md. Azizur, Intellectual Property Rights in Bangladesh, Dhaka Tribune, Dhaka, 28 April 2013.
7
Uddin, M. Kamal, Report on Innovation and Intellectual property policy and Strategy for Bangladesh,
WIPO, Dhaka
12
Energy policy, ICT policy and Health policy in brief. This is not a precise presentation of the
subject8.
1.4 Objectives of the Research

The broad objective of the proposed study is to critically review the system of protection of
IP rights in Bangladesh with a view toward proposing improvements.
Specifically, the study will focus on copyright and other laws and will examine the extent to
which the law effectively protects the interests of stakeholders in practice.
1.5 Research Questions

1. Are the copyright and related policies sufficient to effectively protect the interests of
stakeholders in practice?
2. If the answer to question 1 is No, in what specific areas are the policies insufficient
and why? (Implicit in this regard will be discussed of the question “What could be
done practically to make the policies more sufficient?”)
1.6 Research Hypotheses

On the basis of the above research questions and the broader objectives of the research, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
1. The copyright and related policies/laws are not sufficient to effectively protect the
interest of stakeholders in practice.
2. The policies/laws are insufficient in the following areas for the following reasons:
(a) insufficient knowledge of the policies both by clients and by the enforcing
agencies
(b) insufficient penalties for non-compliance with the policies
(c) the policies are unworkable due to external constraints.
8
Khondker, Bazlul H and Nowshin, Sonia, Developing National Intellectual Property Policy for
Bangladesh: An Assessment of National Intellectual Property System, Dhaka, October 2013.
13
1.7 Research Methodology

It should be recognized that different research problems imply different research goals, which
in turn, call for varied methods and techniques. For the present study the researcher primarily
concentrated on the following methods:
Content Analysis: Content Analysis (CA) is necessary for the objective, systematic and
quantitative description of the manifest content of selected documents and research materials.
Through CA research materials would be critically and objectively reviewed to draw
observations and generalizations in the light of its content values.
In this descriptive research the researcher collected detailed factual information that describes
existing phenomena; identify problems or justify current conditions and practices; and make
comparison and evaluation; and also determine what others are doing with similar problems
or situations and benefit from their experience in making future plans and decisions.
Descriptive research is used in the literal sense for describing situations or events. It is the
accumulation of a database that is solely descriptive – it does not necessarily seek or explain
relationships, test hypothesis, make predictions, or get at meanings and implications.
Descriptive research has the following specific purposes for the present study:
a) To collect detailed factual information that describes existing phenomena;
b) To identify problems or justify current conditions and practices;
c) To make comparison and evaluation;
d) To determine what others are doing with similar problems or situations and benefit from
their experience in making future plans and decisions.
Interview Method: This method is most commonly used in social science research. A well-
structured interview is much more than an ‘oral questionnaire’. Many types of information
and even data can be procured by face-to-face contacts with people, especially data related to
personal history, opinions and attitudes. I undertook opinion surveys through pre-designed
questionnaire for the selected stakeholders and direct and indirect beneficiaries.
14
It is a verbal technique for obtaining data directly from the primary source. Interview is a
very systematic method by which a person enters into the life of even a stranger and can
bring out needed information and data for the research purpose.
Therefore, the following plan was set out for research to answer the research questions of this
study:
(1) Input of Laws

In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with civil servants and others
who have general idea on the laws:
(i) Copyright Act 2000
(ii) Trademarks Act 2009 (optional)
(ii) Geographical Indications Act 2013 (optional).
(2) Output of Laws

In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with some beneficiaries,
Such interviews tried to obtain all facts and opinions about the situation of the informant and
their reaction to the IP system.
1.8 Scope and Limitations of the Research

There is enough literature on intellectual property rights and their protection and detailed
international legal frameworks for promotion and protection of IPR. Those literatures seem to
be confined uniquely to developed countries and do not concern developing countries like
Bangladesh. In relation to my research issues and objectives, the literatures are not extensive
enough. A possible key reason for this might be that data for developing countries like
Bangladesh are not systematically collected or not possible to collect and therefore, relevant
legal measures and actions are absent in Bangladesh. Most of the available policies and
relevant papers were addressed duly in the study.
Hence, due to resource and time constrains, the study is based on contents analysis of
respective literature in English as it is also difficult to perform perfect field research on this
15
topic. Although in respect of data collection, I took very limited number of respondents and
only looked over the industries, agencies, private enterprise, educational institution, IPR
association in Bangladesh, research and development organizations those are situated in
Dhaka.
1.9 Analytical Framework

Inputs
It is assumed that the major impetus for creation of IP laws and regulations are the
international requirements arising from:
(1) International IP law and Treaties (e.g., Berne Convention,

WIPO and TRIPS).
(2) Demands of donor countries, trading partners and other countries which have IP
owners with grievances against Bangladesh over piracy, etc.
There appears to be little domestic pressure or interest in this area, nor is IP currently a major
political issue. Those having IP rights or involved in piracy do not have organized lobbying
or political action to push the Government to take action one way or the other.
It is assumed that the Bangladesh Government acts in the IP area in response to the stimuli in
(1) and (2) above.
Process
It is assumed that there is little knowledge of IP law or rights in Bangladesh, so Government
action to create laws normally has little if any effect. No action normally results from the
policies. The law sits on the books for international IP owners to use in enforcing their rights
in Bangladesh.
Outputs
Therefore, it is assumed that there are no significant outputs from the IPR policies other than
occasional litigation to enforce the rights of international IP owners when infringed.
16
1.10 Chapter Plan
1.10.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

Significance of the Problems
Review of Literature
Objectives of the Research
Research Questions and Hypothesis
Research Methodology
Scope and Limitations of the Research
Analytical Framework
1.10.2 Chapter 2: Intellectual Property Rights: A Conceptual Overview

What Property means
What is Intellectual Property?
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework of the Study
IPR: Its Historical Perspective
Basic Concepts
(Copyright, Industrial Property, Industrial Design, Traditional Knowledge, Patent,
Trademark, Trade Secret, Geographical Indication, Plant Variety etc.)
1.10.3 Chapter 3: Review of the best practices of IPR laws of selected countries
(India, Pakistan, China, Korea, Malaysia etc.)
1.10.4 Chapter 4: An Empirical Overview of Bangladesh Situation
1.10.5 Chapter 5: Empirical Observations
1.10.6 Chapter 6: Policy Options / Recommendations
Conclusion
17
Chapter 2
Property and Intellectual property
2.1 What Property means?

Property implies right over an object and this right prohibit others from using the object. It is
an object of legal rights, which embraces possessions of wealth collectively, frequently with
strong connotations of individual ownership. In law the term property refers to the complex
of jural relationships between and among persons with respect to things. The things may be
tangible, such as land or goods, or intangible, such as stock and bonds, a patent or a
copyright. With the emergence of private ownership, property has become more private.
There is a fundamental difference between properties held by individual and collective or

common property. It is more in the form of access. Owners of the property enjoy the rights to
transfer, modify and even to the extent of destroying the same. However, destruction of
private property is not permissible in some cases.
In Bangladesh property includes property of every description, movable or immovable,

corporeal or incorporeal, and commercial and industrial undertakings, and any right or
interest in any such property or undertaking. The Constitution also guarantees that subject to
any restrictions imposed by law, every citizen shall have to acquire, hold, transfer or
otherwise depose of property, and no property shall be compulsorily acquired, nationalized or
requisitioned save by authority of law. But the republic shall enjoy ownership of other
property like all minerals and other things of value underlying any land of Bangladesh; all
lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or
the ocean over the continental shelf of Bangladesh; and any property located in Bangladesh
that has no rightful owner.
2.2 What is Intellectual Property?

What is then intellectual property? Is it the creation of the mind in the form of ideas? To what
extent the creator of ideas can claim legal protection over the use of the creation by others?
The main argument of this system is that the author of intellectual property needs to gain
credit and thereby rents for efforts in development and marketing of the idea. The system is
18
essentially supposed to encourage innovation and restrain imitation of ideas by others for a
limited period in the areas of art, science, technology and industry.
A definition of the intellectual property says it is a category of public law that generally
includes copyrights, patents, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, utility
models, plant breeder’s rights, integrated circuits rights and trade secrets (Lechter, 19959).
Intellectual property, as defined by the TRIPS Agreement, includes copyright and related
rights, computer programmes and compilation of data, trademarks, geographical
indications/appellation, acts of performers, sound recordings and broadcasts, industrial
designs, patents, layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits and undisclosed
information.
Traditionally, intellectual property has been divided into two main categories: copyrights and
industrial property. With the passage of time, other categories have grouped as intellectual
property. This is where the debate over the ownership of intellectual property has intensified.
The debate has also become complicated because of differences of opinion in interpreting the
different Articles and clauses of the TRIPS Agreement.
2.3 Conceptual / Theoretical Framework of the Study

Intellectual Property is the creation of human mind and IP right is the certification of any
creativity like innovation, invention, art or literature. Usually intangible goods are called
"Intellectual Property". The current international system for protecting intellectual property
was fashioned during the age of industrialization in the West and developed subsequently in
line with the perceived needs of technologically advanced societies. Intellectual property
plays an important role in an increasingly broad range of areas, ranging from the Internet to
health care to nearly all aspects of science and technology, literature and the arts.
Understanding the role of intellectual property in these areas, many of them is still emerging,
often requires significant new research and study. In an effort to promote, to protect, to
improve the import and export, attract foreign investment attempts are taken for IPR sector
rearrangement as per the present need in developing to developed countries. In reality
technologically advanced countries, the so-called 1st World is in this position that they are
9
Michael A. Lechter is an intellectual property lawyer, President and CEO of Tech Press, author, investor and
entrepreneur. Michael has been practicing law as a patent attorney since the early 1970s.
19
getting the advantages of TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). IP
is, in the words of WIPO, “a power tool for economic development that is not yet being used
to optimum effect particularly in the developing world”.
Intellectual Property itself contains many theories. According to Article 27 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is
the author".10 Although the relationship between intellectual property and human rights is a
complex one,11 there are moral arguments for intellectual property.
The arguments that justify intellectual property fall into three major categories. Personality
theorists believe intellectual property is an extension of an individual. Utilitarians believe that
intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation.
Lockeans (followers of John Locke, the father of liberalism) argue that intellectual property is
justified based on deservedness and hard work.12
Various moral justifications for private property can be used to argue in favor of the morality
of intellectual property, such as:
1. Natural Rights/Justice Argument: this argument is based on Locke's idea that a person
has a natural right over the labor and/or products which is produced by his/her body.
Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never
explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind,13 it is possible to
apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for
people to misuse another's ideas.14 Locke's argument for intellectual property is based
upon the idea that laborers have the right to control that which they create. They argue
10
United Nations. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Retrieved October 25, 2011.
11
WIPO – The World Intellectual Property Organization. "Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An
Overview". Retrieved October 25, 2011.
12
Moore, Adam (2014). "Intellectual Property". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
13
Ronald V. Bettig. "Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright" in Copyrighting
Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property, by Ronald V. Bettig. (Boulder, CO: West view Press,
1996), 19–20
14
Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights," in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by
George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.),
415–416.
20
that we own our bodies which are the laborers; this right of ownership extends to what
we create. Thus, intellectual property ensures this right when it comes to production.
2. Utilitarian-Pragmatic Argument: according to this rationale, a society that protects
private property is more effective and prosperous than societies that do not.
Innovation and invention in 19th century America has been attributed to the
development of the patent system.15 By providing innovators with "durable and
tangible return on their investment of time, labor, and other resources", intellectual
property rights seek to maximize social utility.16 The presumption is that they promote
public welfare by encouraging the "creation, production, and distribution of
intellectual works".17 Utilitarians argue that without intellectual property there would
be a lack of incentive to produce new ideas. Systems of protection such as Intellectual
property optimize social utility.
3. "Personality" Argument: this argument is based on a quote from Hegel: "Every man
has the right to turn his will upon a thing or make the thing an object of his will, that
is to say, to set aside the mere thing and recreate it as his own". 18 European
intellectual property law is shaped by this notion that ideas are an "extension of
oneself and of one's personality".19 Personality theorists argue that by being a creator
of something one is inherently at risk and vulnerable for having their ideas and
designs stolen and/or altered. Intellectual property protects these moral claims that
have to do with personality.
Lysander Spooner (1855) argues "that a man has a natural and absolute right—and if a
natural and absolute, then necessarily a perpetual, right—of property, in the ideas, of which
he is the discoverer or creator; that his right of property, in ideas, is intrinsically the same as,
15
416.
16
Spinello, Richard A. (January 2007). "Intellectual property rights". Library Hi Tech. 25 (1): 12–22.
doi:10.1108/07378830710735821.
17
Ibid.
18
417.
19
418.
21
and stands on identically the same grounds with, his right of property in material things; that
no distinction, of principle, exists between the two cases".20
Writer Ayn Rand argued in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that the protection of
intellectual property is essentially a moral issue. The belief is that the human mind itself is
the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property. To
violate intellectual property is therefore no different morally than violating other property
rights which compromises the very processes of survival and therefore constitutes an immoral
act.21
Criticism of the term intellectual property ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract
over reach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like property and
rights in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially
serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise
abusing related legislations; and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and
often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.22
Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term
intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically
distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from
this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate
laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have
different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by
confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to
"property rights".23 Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the
singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term. He argues that
20
The Law of Intellectual Property, Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 9 – Lysander Spooner.
21
Rand, Ayn (1967) [1966]. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (paperback 2nd ed.). New York: Signet.
22
Mike Masnick (6 March 2008). "If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?".
techdirt.com. Techdirt. Archived from the original on 13 August 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2014.
23
Richard M. Stallman. "Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage". Free Software
Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
22
"to avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to
speak or even think in terms of 'intellectual property'."24
Similarly, economists Boldrin and Levine prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a
more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which they argue, is very dissimilar
from property rights.25
On the assumption that intellectual property rights are actual rights, Stallman says that this
claim does not live to the historical intentions behind these laws, which in the case of
copyright served as a censorship system, and later on, a regulatory model for the printing
press that may have benefited authors incidentally, but never interfered with the freedom of
average readers.26 Still referring to copyright, he cites legal literature such as the United
States Constitution and case law to demonstrate that the law is meant to be an optional and
experimental bargain to temporarily trade property rights and free speech for public, not
private, benefits in the form of increased artistic production and knowledge. He mentions that
"if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain
period of time".27
Law professor, writer and political activist Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft
and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like
land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is
generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of
a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original). 28 Other
arguments along these lines claim that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is no
natural scarcity of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and
duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. Stephan Kinsella has
24
Richard M. Stallman. "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing". The
GNU Project. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
25
Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.
26
Richard Stallman (19 April 2001). "Copyright and globalization in the age of computer networks". mit.edu.
Archived from the original on 2 March 2015. Retrieved 21 October 2015.
27
Richard Stallman. "Misinterpreting Copyright". gnu.org. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015.
Retrieved 21 October 2015.
28
Doctorow, Cory (2008-02-21). ""Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-
02-23.
23
objected to intellectual property on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity,
which may not be applicable to ideas.29
Entrepreneur and politician Rickard Falkvinge and hacker Alexandre Oliva have
independently compared George Orwell's fictional dialect Newspeak to the terminology used
by intellectual property supporters as a linguistic weapon to shape public opinion regarding
copyright debate and DRM (Digital Rights Management).30
Alternative terms
In civil law jurisdictions, intellectual property has often been referred to as intellectual rights,
traditionally a somewhat broader concept that has included moral rights and other personal
protections that cannot be bought or sold. Use of the term intellectual rights has declined
since the early 1980s, as use of the term intellectual property has increased.
Alternative terms monopolies on information and intellectual monopoly have emerged among
those who argue against the "property" or "intellect" or "rights" assumptions, notably Richard
Stallman. The backronyms intellectual protectionism and intellectual poverty,31 whose
initials are also IP, have found supporters as well, especially among those who have used the
backronym digital restrictions management.32
The argument that an intellectual property right should (in the interests of better balancing of
relevant private and public interests) be termed an intellectual monopoly privilege (IMP) has
been advanced by several academics including Birgitte Andersen 33 and Thomas Alured
Faunce.34
29
Stephan Kinsella (2001) Against Intellectual Property Journal of Libertarian Studies 15(2):1–53
30
Rick Falkvinge (14 July 2013). "Language Matters: Framing The Copyright Monopoly So We Can Keep Our
Liberties". torrentfreak.com. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2014.
Alexandre Oliva. "1984+30: GNU speech to defeat e-newspeak" (PDF). Retrieved 17 August 2014.
31
Stephan Kinsella for Ludwig von Mises Institute blog, January 6, 2011. Intellectual Poverty
32
Official drm.info site run by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)
"What is DRM?". Defective by Design. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
33
Birgitte Andersen. "'Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege: Which One Should
Patent Analysts Focus On?" CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL SOBRE SISTEMAS DE INOVAÇÃO E
ESTRATÉGIAS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO PARA O TERCEIRO MILÊNIO. Nov 2003
34
Martin, G; Sorenson, C; Faunce, TA (2007). "Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for
essential medicines". Globalization and Health. 3: 4. PMC 1904211 . PMID 17565684. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-
3-4. Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs) (which the third author considers are
more accurately described as intellectual monopoly privileges (IMPs)) of pharmaceutical companies, with the
24
Objections to overbroad intellectual property laws
Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culture movement, point at
intellectual monopolies as harming health (in the case of pharmaceutical patents), preventing
progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses, 35
and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever-expansive monopolies in the form of
copyright extensions, software patents, and business method patents. More recently scientists
and engineers are expressing concern that patent thickets are undermining technological
development even in high-tech fields like nanotechnology.36
Petra Moser has asserted that historical analysis suggests that intellectual property laws may
harm innovation:
Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which
grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors, may discourage
innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent
laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to
encourage innovation.37
Peter Drahos notes, "Property rights confer authority over resources. When authority is
granted to the few over resources on which many depend, the few gain power over the goals
need to ensure access to essential medicines in developing countries is one of the most pressing challenges
facing international policy makers today.
35
Birgitte Andersen. 'Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege': Which One Should
Patent Analysts Focus On? Conferência Internacional Sobre Sistemas De Inovação E Estratégias De
Desenvolvimento Para O Terceiro Milênio. Nov. 2003
Martin, G; Sorenson, C; Faunce, TA (2007). "Editorial: Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property
rights (IPRs)". Globalization and Health. 3: 4.
On patents - Daniel B. Ravicher (August 6, 2008). "Protecting Freedom In The Patent System: The Public
Patent Foundation's Mission and Activities".
Joseph Stiglitz (October 13, 2006). "Authors@Google: Joseph Stiglitz – Making Globalization Work.".
36
Pearce, J. (2012). "Make nanotechnology research open-source". Nature. 491: 519. doi:10.1038/491519a.
Joshua M. Pearce, Open-source nanotechnology: Solutions to a modern intellectual property tragedy, Nano
Today, Volume 8, Issue 4, August 2013, Pages 339–341. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2013.04.001 open access
Usman Mushtaq and Joshua M. Pearce "Open Source Appropriate Nanotechnology" Chapter 9 in editors Donald
Maclurcan and Natalia Radywyl, Nanotechnology and Global Sustainability Archived 2013-04-02 at the
Wayback Machine., CRC Press, pp. 191-213, 2012.
Stallman's got company: Researcher wants nanotech patent moratorium – Ars Technica
Freeze on nanotechnology patents proposed to help grow the sector Archived 2014-03-02 at the Wayback
Machine.- Wired UK 11-23-2012
37
Moser, Petra. 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History." Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 27(1): 23-44.
25
of the many. This has consequences for both political and economic freedoms within a
society."38
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes that conflicts may exist
between the respect for and implementation of current intellectual property systems and other
human rights.39 In 2001 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a
document called "Human rights and intellectual property" that argued that intellectual
property tends to be governed by economic goals when it should be viewed primarily as a
social product; in order to serve human well-being, intellectual property systems must respect
and conform to human rights laws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so
they risk infringing upon the human right to food and health, and to cultural participation and
scientific benefits.40 In 2004 the General Assembly of WIPO adopted The Geneva
Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization which argues that
WIPO should "focus more on the needs of developing countries, and to view IP as one of
many tools for development—not as an end in itself".41
Further along these lines, the ethical problems brought up by IP rights are most pertinent
when it is socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines are given IP protection. While
the application of IP rights can allow companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of
production in order to recoup the costs of research and development, the price may exclude
from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product (in this case a life-saving
drug).42 "An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conductive to the investment
of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominately poor populations". 43
38
Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite. Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, Earthscan
2002
39
WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization. "Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An Overview".
Retrieved October 25, 2011.
40
Staff, UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva, November 12–30, 2001. Human
rights and intellectual property
Chapman, Audrey R. (December 2002). "The Human Rights Implications of Intellectual Property Protection".
Journal of International Economic Law. 5 (4): 861–882. doi:10.1093/jiel/5.4.861. Retrieved February 9, 2013.
41
The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization
42
Jorn Sonderholm (2010) Ethical Issues Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights, Philosophy Compass 5(12):
1107–1115.
43
Ibid.
26
Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in
ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible
property. Stephan Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:
Imagine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let's call him Galt-Magnon—
decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea,
and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own
cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to
prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them
a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial
owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and
use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly,
this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly
overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.44
Thomas Jefferson once said in a letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is
the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess
as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar
character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He, who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he
who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."45
Another aspect of current U.S. Intellectual Property legislation is its focus on individual and
joint works; thus, copyright protection can only be obtained in 'original' works of
authorship.46
44
N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual property (2008), p. 44.
45
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson (August 13, 1813)
46
Bennet, Philip (2009). "Native Americans and Intellectual Property: the Necessity of Implementing Collective
Ideals into Current United States Intellectual Property Laws".
27
In 2005 the RSA (Royal Society of Arts) launched the Adelphi Charter, aimed at creating an
international policy statement to frame how governments should make balanced intellectual
property law.47
The Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property is the result of a
project commissioned by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures &
Commerce, London, UK, and is intended as a positive statement of what good intellectual
property policy is. The Charter was issued in 2004.48
The Charter has subsequently influenced thinking on Intellectual Property Law, and in
particular, heavily influenced a subsequent copyright manifesto Copyright for Creativity - A
Declaration for Europe.
The Adelphi Charter reads:
Humanity’s capacity to generate new ideas and knowledge is its greatest asset. It is the source
of art, science, innovation and economic development. Without it, individuals and societies
stagnate.
This creative imagination requires access to the ideas, learning and culture of others, past and
present. And, in the future, others will use what we have done. Human rights call on us to
ensure that everyone can create, access, use and share information and knowledge, enabling
individuals, communities and societies to achieve their full potential.
Creativity and investment should be recognized and rewarded. The purpose of intellectual
property law (such as copyright and patents) should be, now as it was in the past, to ensure
both the sharing of knowledge and the rewarding of innovation.
The expansion in the law’s breadth, scope and term over the last 30 years has resulted in an
intellectual property regime which is radically out of line with modern technological,
economic and social trends. This disconnect threatens the chain of creativity and innovation
47
Boyle, James (14 October 2005). Protecting the public domain. The Guardian.
48
Quinn, Michael J. (2011). Ethics for the Information Age (4th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson. p. 171.
ISBN 978-0-13-213387-6.
28
on which we and future generations depend. We therefore call upon governments and the
international community to adopt these principles:
1. Laws regulating intellectual property must serve as means of achieving creative,

social and economic ends and must not be seen as ends in themselves.
2. These laws and regulations must serve, and never overturn, the basic human rights
to health, education, employment and cultural life.
3. The public interest requires a balance between the public domain and private rights.
It also requires a balance between the free competition which is essential for
economic vitality and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws.
4. Intellectual property protection must not be extended to abstract ideas, facts or data.
5. Patents must not be extended over mathematical models, scientific theories,
computer code, methods for teaching, business processes, and methods of medical
diagnosis, therapy or surgery.
6. Copyright and patents must be limited in time and their terms must not extend
beyond what is proportionate and necessary.
7. Government must facilitate a wide range of policies to stimulate access and
innovation, including non-proprietary models such as open source software licensing
and open access to scientific literature.
8. Intellectual property laws must take account of developing countries’ social and
economic circumstances.
9. In making decisions about intellectual property law, governments should adhere to
these rules:
• There must be an automatic presumption against creating new areas of intellectual
property protection, extending existing privileges or extending the duration of rights.
• The burden of proof in such cases must lie on the advocates of change.
• Change must be allowed only if a rigorous analysis clearly demonstrates that it will
promote people’s basic rights and economic well-being.
• Throughout, there should be wide public consultation and a comprehensive,
objective and transparent assessment of public detriments and benefits. 49
49
Royal Society of Arts (Great Britain), ed. (2006). Promoting innovation and rewarding creativity (PDF). RSA.
pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0-901469-59-5.
Boyle, James (14 October 2005). Protecting the public domain. The Guardian. Unknown (13 October 2005).
Free Ideas. The Economist. Thompson, Bill (17 October 2005). Copyright for the digital age. The BBC.
29
Expansion in nature and scope of intellectual property laws
Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the expansion of intellectual property,
both in duration and in scope.
In addition, as scientific knowledge has expanded and allowed new industries to arise in
fields such as biotechnology and nanotechnology, originators of technology have sought IP
protection for the new technologies. Patents have been granted for living organisms, 50 (and in
the United States, certain living organisms have been patentable for over a century).
The increase in terms of protection is particularly seen in relation to copyright, which has
recently been the subject of serial extensions in the United States and in Europe.51 With no
need for registration or copyright notices, this is thought to have led to an increase in orphan
works (copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted), a problem
that has been noticed and addressed by governmental bodies around the world.52
Also with respect to copyright, the American film industry helped to change the social
construct of intellectual property via its trade organization, the Motion Picture Association of
America. In amicus briefs in important cases, in lobbying before Congress, and in its
statements to the public, the MPAA has advocated strong protection of intellectual-property
rights. In framing its presentations, the association has claimed that people are entitled to the
property that is produced by their labor. Additionally Congress's awareness of the position of
the United States as the world's largest producer of films has made it convenient to expand
50
Council for Responsible Genetics, DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms. Accessed
2008.12.18.
51
E.g., the U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, Pub.L. 105–298.
Mark Helprin, Op-ed: A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? The New York Times, May 20,
2007.
Eldred v. Ashcroft Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186 (2003)
Mike Masnick (May 21, 2007). "Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total
Misunderstanding Of Property". techdirt.
52
Library of Congress Copyright Office Docket No. 2012–12 Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Federal
Register, Vol. 77, No. 204. Monday, October 22, 2012. Notices. PP 64555–64561; see p 64555 first column for
international efforts and 3rd column for description of the problem.
30
the conception of intellectual property.53 These doctrinal reforms have further strengthened
the industry, lending the MPAA even more power and authority.54
The growth of the Internet, and particularly distributed search engines like Kazaa and
Gnutella, have represented a challenge for copyright policy. The Recording Industry
Association of America, in particular, has been on the front lines of the fight against
copyright infringement, which the industry calls "piracy". The industry has had victories
against some services, including a highly publicized case against the file-sharing company
Napster, and some people have been prosecuted for sharing files in violation of copyright.
The electronic age has seen an increase in the attempt to use software-based digital rights
management tools to restrict the copying and use of digitally based works. Laws such as the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act have been enacted that use criminal law to prevent any
circumvention of software used to enforce digital rights management systems. Equivalent
provisions, to prevent circumvention of copyright protection have existed in EU for some
time, and are being expanded in, for example, Article 6 and 7 the Copyright Directive. Other
examples are Article 7 of the Software Directive of 1991 (91/250/EEC), and the Conditional
Access Directive of 1998 (98/84/EEC). This can hinder legal uses, affecting public domain
works, limitations and exceptions to copyright, or uses allowed by the copyright holder.
Some copy left licenses, like GNU GPL 3, are designed to counter that.55 Laws may permit
circumvention under specific conditions like when it is necessary to achieve interoperability
with the circumventor's program, or for accessibility reasons; however, distribution of
circumvention tools or instructions may be illegal.
In the context of trademarks, this expansion has been driven by international efforts to
harmonize the definition of "trademark", as exemplified by the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ratified in 1994, which formalized regulations for IP
rights that had been handled by common law, or not at all, in member states. Pursuant to
53
Dennis Wharton, "MPAA's Rebel with Cause Fights for Copyright Coin," Variety (August 3, 1992), Vol. 348,
No. 2, p. 18.
54
William W. Fisher III, The Growth of Intellectual Property:A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United
States Eigentumskulturen im Vergleich (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)
55
Brett Smith (2007–2010). "A Quick Guide to GPLv3". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2013-02-15.
31
TRIPs, any sign which is "capable of distinguishing" the products or services of one business
from the products or services of another business is capable of constituting a trademark.56
The stated objective of most intellectual property law (with the exception of trademarks) is to
"Promote progress." By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and
creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is
created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work. Some commentators have
noted that the objective of intellectual property legislators and those who support its
implementation appears to be "absolute protection". "If some intellectual property is desirable
because it encourages innovation, they reason, more is better. The thinking is that creators
will not have sufficient incentive to invent unless they are legally entitled to capture the full
social value of their inventions".57 This absolute protection or full value view treats
intellectual property as another type of "real" property, typically adopting its law and rhetoric.
Other recent developments in intellectual property law, such as the America Invents Act,
stress international harmonization. Recently there has also been much debate over the
desirability of using intellectual property rights to protect cultural heritage, including
intangible ones, as well as over risks of commodification derived from this possibility.58 The
issue still remains open in legal scholarship.
Financial incentive
These exclusive rights allow owners of intellectual property to benefit from the property they
have created, providing a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in intellectual
property, and, in case of patents, pay associated research and development costs.59 In the
United States Article I Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly called the Patent
and Copyright Clause, reads; "[The Congress shall have power] 'To promote the progress of
56
Katherine Beckman and Christa Pletcher (2009) Expanding Global Trademark Regulation Wake Forest
Intellectual Property Law Journal 10(2): 215–239
57
Mark A. Lemley. "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding". Heinonline.org. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
58
Farah, Paolo Davide; Tremolada, Riccardo (March 15, 2014). "Desirability of Commodification of
Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Unsatisfying Role of Intellectual Property Rights". Transnational Dispute
Management. 11 (2). SSRN 2472339
59
Prudential Reasons for IPR Reform, University of Melbourne, Doris Schroeder and Peter Singer, May 2009
32
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries."60
Some commentators, such as David Levine and Michele Boldrin, dispute this justification.61
In 2013 the United States Patent & Trademark Office approximated that the worth of
intellectual property to the U.S. economy is more than US $5 trillion and creates employment
for an estimated 18 million American people. The value of intellectual property is considered
similarly high in other developed nations, such as those in the European Union. 62 In the UK,
IP has become a recognized asset class for use in pension-led funding and other types of
business finance. However, in 2013, the UK Intellectual Property Office stated: "There are
millions of intangible business assets whose value is either not being leveraged at all or only
being leveraged inadvertently".63
Economic growth
The WIPO treaty and several related international agreements underline that the protection of
intellectual property rights is essential for maintaining economic growth. The WIPO
Intellectual Property Handbook gives two reasons for intellectual property laws:
One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their
creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote,
as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of
its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social
development.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) states that "effective enforcement of

intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic growth across all industries and
globally".
60
"Copyright & Fair Use". Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved 26 June 2017.
61
Levine, David; Michele Boldrin (2008-09-07). Against intellectual monopoly (PDF). Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87928-6.
62
Thomas Bollyky (10 April 2013). "Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India".
The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
63
Brassell, King, Martin, Kelvin (2013). Banking on IP? (PDF). Newport, Wales: The Intellectual Property
Office. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-908908-86-5.
33
Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the United States can
be traced to intangible assets.64 "IP-intensive industries" are estimated to generate 72 percent
more value added (price minus material cost) per employee than "non-IP-intensive
industries".65
A joint research project of the WIPO and the United Nations University measuring the impact
of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening
of the IP system and subsequent economic growth."66
Despite many differences in the theories and few negative aspects in it, intellectual property
and its right can’t be ignored. It should be encouraged for financial incentive and economic
growth. Financial as well as economic emancipation is a dependent variable what Bangladesh
should remember.
2.3.1 IPR: Its Historical Perspective
The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are seen as the
origins of patent law and copyright respectively,67 firmly establishing the concept of
intellectual property.
The first known use of the term intellectual property dates to 1769, when a piece published in
the Monthly Review used the phrase.68 The first clear example of modern usage goes back as
early as 1808, when it was used as a heading title in a collection of essays. 69
64
Robert J. Shapiro; Nam D. Pham. "Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the
United States" (PDF). Sonecon.com. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
65
Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the United States, Robert Shapiro and
Nam Pham, July 2007 (archived on archive.org).
66
Measuring the Economic Impact of IP Systems, WIPO, 2007.
67
Brad, Sherman; Lionel Bently (1999). The making of modern intellectual property law: the British experience,
1760–1911. Cambridge University Press. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-521-56363-5.
68
"intellectual property". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September
2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) (Citing Monthly Review, vol. 41. p. 290 (1769):
"What a niggard this Doctor is of his own, and how profuse he is of other people's intellectual property.")
69
"intellectual property". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September
2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) (Citing Medical Repository Of Original Essays
And Intelligence, vol. 11. p. 303 (1808): "New-England Association in favour of Inventors and Discoverers, and
particularly for the Protection of intellectual Property.")
34
The German equivalent was used with the founding of the North German Confederation
whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property
(Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation.70 When the administrative secretariats
established by the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in
1893, they located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new
combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property.
The organization subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with
the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by treaty as an
agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term
really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne
Convention),71 and it did not enter popular usage there until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in
1980.72
"The history of patents does not begin with inventions, but rather with royal grants by Queen
Elizabeth I (1558–1603) for monopoly privileges... Approximately 200 years after the end of
Elizabeth's reign, however, a patent represents a legal right obtained by an inventor providing
for exclusive control over the production and sale of his mechanical or scientific invention...
[demonstrating] the evolution of patents from royal prerogative to common-law doctrine."73
The term can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the
patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in
this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests
are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." 74 The statement
that "discoveries are...property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated,
"All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and
temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or
70
'Article 4 No. 6 of the Constitution of 1867 (German)' Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001
71
"property as a common descriptor of the field probably traces to the foundation of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) by the United Nations." in Mark A. Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and
Free Riding, Texas Law Review, 2005, Vol. 83:1031, page 1033, footnote 4.
72
Mark A. Lemley, "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding" (Abstract); see Table 1: 4–5.
73
Mossoff, A. 'Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550–1800,' Hastings Law
Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001
74
1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West.L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414
35
fifteen years."75 In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his
Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.
Until recently, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection as
possible in order to encourage innovation. Historically, therefore, they were granted only
when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope. 76 The concept's
origins can potentially be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations
whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of
intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist – notably the principle of Hasagat
Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author)
copyright in the 16th century.77 In 500 BCE, the government of the Greek state of Sybaris
offered one year's patent "to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury". 78
According to Morin, "the global intellectual property regime is currently in the midst of a
paradigm shift"79. Indeed, up until the early 2000s the global IP regime used to be dominated
by high standards of protection characteristic of IP laws from Europe or the United States,
with a vision that uniform application of these standards over every country and to several
fields with little consideration over social, cultural or environmental values or of the national
level of economic development. Morin argues that "the emerging discourse of the global IP
regime advocates for greater policy ﬂexibility and greater access to knowledge, especially for
developing countries." Indeed, with the Development Agenda adopted by WIPO in 2007, a
set of 45 recommendations to adjust WIPO’s activities to the specific needs of developing
countries and aim to reduce distortions especially on issues such as patients’ access to
medicines, Internet users’ access to information, farmers’ access to seeds, programmers’
75
"Patent Archives – Ladas & Parry LLP". Ladas.com. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
76
Mark A. Lemley. "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding". Heinonline.org. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
77
"Jewish Law – Articles ("Jewish Law and Copyright")". Jlaw.com. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
78
Charles Anthon, A Classical Dictionary: Containing an Account of the Principal Proper Names Mentioned in
Ancient Authors, and Intended to Elucidate All the Important Points Connected with the Geography, History,
Biography, Mythology, and Fine Arts of the Greek and Romans. Together with an Account of Coins, Weights,
and Measures, with Tabular Values of the Same 1273 (Harper & Brothers 1841). See also "The first patent law
was enacted in Sybaris, a city in the South of Italy, before the Roman domination; (…) The law was mentioned
by Atheneus, an ancient writer..." in Takenaka, Toshiko (2013). Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil
Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 419. (chapter by Mario Franzosi).
79
Morin, Jean-Frederic. "Paradigm shift in the global IP regime: The agency of academics, Review of
International Political Economy, vol 21-2, 2014, p.275" (PDF).
36
access to source codes or students’ access to scientific articles. 80 However, this paradigm
shift has not yet manifested itself in concrete legal reforms at the international level. 81 As per,
Article 12 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that, for the purposes of that Agreement, the
term “Intellectual Property” refers to all categories of rights which are covered by Sections 1
to 7 of Part II of the Agreement itself, namely. copyrights and related rights, trademarks (and
service marks), geographical indications, industrial designs, patents including plant varieties,
layout designs of integrated circuit and undisclosed information, including trade secrets.
IP rights are customarily divided into two main areas or branches: copyright (and rights
related to copyright) and industrial property. The convention establishing the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), concluded in Stockholm on July 14, 1967
[Article 2 (viii)] provides that "intellectual property shall include rights relating to: literature,
artistic and scientific works
 performance of performing artists, phonograms and broadcasts
 inventions in all fields of human endeavor
 scientific discoveries
 Industrial designs.
 trademark, service marks and commercial names and designations
 protection against unfair competition and
 all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary
or artistic fields.
The areas mentioned as literature, artistic and scientific works belong to the copyright branch
of intellectual property. Besides this, the performing arts, phonograms and broadcasts usually
called "related rights:, are also covered under the purview of copyright, inventions, industrial
designs, trademarks, service marks, commercial names and designations constitute the
industrial property branch of intellectual property.
Industrial sector of Bangladesh is growing very fast. With the accelerated growth of the
sector, the demand for new innovation, design, trade secret would increase which would
80
Ibid.
81
Morin, Jean-Frederic. "Paradigm shift in the global IP regime: The agency of academics, Review of
International Political Economy, vol 21-2, 2014, p.275" (PDF).
37
ultimately be created through an effective IP system. If the initiatives are not taken now
private sector's demands for the industrial machineries, software and designs would hardly be
met.
The need for proper execution of the Paris and Bern Convention led to the setting up of the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by a Convention of 14 July 1967, which
entered into force in 1970. WIPO has been a specialized agency of the United Nations since
1974. Its objectives are to promote intellectual property protection across the globe through
cooperation among the states and, where appropriate, in collaboration with any other
international organization. The WIPO has no dispute settlement mechanism barring through
the treaties it executes. These treaties do not provide much help for countries concerned about
the non-compliance of other parties. 1978 agreement administered by WIPO allows inventors
filing international applications in a member country, and after a search or preliminary
examination, it is forwarded to other member countries for independent determination of
patentability.
The subject and content of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) were included in the final
phases of Uruguay Round (UR) of General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT)
negotiations pressured by the US in 1986 and with support from the EC. In reality, the
developed courtiers wanted a system through which all the IPRs could be brought under a
single agreement leading to global enforcement. The developing countries thought that the
benefits of different UR Agreements would outweigh the economic and social cost of the
TRIPS Agreement. Also the developing countries were pressurized and allured by ensuring
more access to the markets of the developed world. Besides, the application of the copy-
strategy ensured growth for many developing countries during the twentieth century that
created challenge to the industrial economies and necessitated the enactment of TRIPS
Agreement. When concluded in 1994 it was termed a ‘victory for the free over managed trade
regimes’. The arguments and validations put forward for inclusion of IPR into GATT were as
follows:
 Countries would receive higher amount of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) if a
stronger IPR regime were in place
 Higher level of FDI would facilitate transfer of technology from the developed
countries into the developing countries
 An IPR regime would generate local innovation.
38
To specify the debate over the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, an agreement of
cooperation between WIPO and the WTO came into force on 1 January 1996. This provided
for cooperation in three areas: notification of access to and translation of national laws and
regulations, implementation of procedures for the protection of national emblems and
technical co-operations.
2.3.2 Basic Concepts
Copyright, Traditional Knowledge, Industrial Property, Patent, Industrial Design,

Plant Variety, Trademark, Trade Secret, Geographical Indication: Concept and
Practice
The various forms of IP protected in Bangladesh are patents, trademarks, industrial designs,
copyright, layout-designs of integrated circuits, geographical indications, trade secrets and
confidential information, as well as plant variety, etc. The different areas of Intellectual
property Rights are briefly discussed here.
Copyright: Copyright (or author’s right) is a legal term used to describe the rights that
creators have over their literary and artistic works. Works covered by copyright range from
books, music, paintings, sculpture, and films, to computer programs, databases,
advertisements, maps, and technical drawings. In most European languages other than
English, copyright is called “author’s rights”. “Author’s rights” refers to the person who is
the creator of the artistic work, its author, thus underlining the fact, recognized in most laws,
that the author has certain specific rights in his creation, for example, the right to prevent a
distorted reproduction, which can be exercised only by himself, whereas other rights, such as
the right to make copies, can be exercised by other persons, for example, a publisher who has
obtained a license to this effect from the author. Copyright law aims to balance the interests
of those who create content, with the public interest in having the widest possible access to
that content. WIPO administers several international treaties in the area of copyright and
related rights, i.e. Bern Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Work, Rome
Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting
39
Organization, WIPO Copyright Treaty, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. In

Bangladesh, the government enacted Copyright Act, 2000 (as amended in 2005) for the
protection of rights of the authors and creators of literary and artistic work.
Copyright needs recognition by registration; otherwise it will not be protected. Suppose, the
concept of modern microcredit is generally considered to have originated with the Grameen
Bank founded in Bangladesh in 1983 for what Bangladesh won a Nobel Peace Prize for the
first time. Many traditional banks subsequently introduced microcredit despite initial
misgivings. The United Nations declared 2005 the International Year of Microcredit. But the
question: is this well known intellectual property registered? As it was not registered
Bangladesh as well as Grameen Bank has been deprived from huge amount of royalties. As
of 2012, microcredit is widely used in developing countries and is presented as having
‘enormous potential as a tool for poverty alleviation’82.
Secondly, it requires carefulness and to be quick updated. For instance, recently West Bengal
had a move to be renamed its original name as ‘Bangla’ or ‘Bengal’. Bangladesh have to be
thought immediately what consequences it would bring regarding possible lose of intellectual
property. So name matters in case of getting benefit from the intellectual properties.
Traditional Knowledge: The recent understanding about benefits from traditional

knowledge in the field of medicines and agriculture has contributed to efforts in preserving
and documenting traditional knowledge. By definition traditional knowledge refers to the
empirical knowledge of a group of long-term inhabitants of a specific location, and the
principles underlying the generation, organization, meaning and diffusion of that knowledge
(IUCN, 1967). Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local
culture and environment, traditional knowledge is usually transmitted orally from generation
to generation.
The importance of the study appears to have a strong constitutional mandate. The Article 23
of the Constitution of Bangladesh emphasizes that the State shall adopt measures to conserve
the cultural traditions and heritage of the people.
82
Source: Wikipedia
40
In the light of the constitutional commitment for conservation there is a need for83:
a) Documentation of traditional knowledge (TK) and developing a legal regime protecting

TK and banning patents of this knowledge on ethical, social and economic grounds. This
will evolve reviewing the existing legal regimes having implication on TK and removing
all anomalies, which might affect national sovereign ownership on TK. But the
documentation would have to be done with caution. Because once documented without a
legal protection, the register would be available on database and facilitate appropriation
by bio-prospectors.
b) Developing a national policy incorporating the issues of conservation, commercialization
and legal protection of traditional knowledge and identifying a legal point / organization
to monitor the implementation of the policy. This focal point / organization would
coordinate activities of all national agencies / organizations / institutions and ministries
dealing with traditional knowledge.
c) Informing people in general and policy planners in particular about the importance of
traditional knowledge, innovations and practices; biological resources and conventional
biotechnology. They should also be informed about the social, moral, economic, political
and legal implications of modern biotechnology.
d) Ensuring adequate compensation for use of and patenting traditional knowledge,
innovations and inventions.
e) Legally empowering indigenous and local communities to demand and grant prior
informed consent before the collection of generic resources on their land.
f) Bringing all the bio-prospecting activities under a legal system.
Industrial Property: Typically, the creations to which industrial property relates are
inventions and industrial designs. The WIPO Model Law for Developing Countries on
Inventions (1979) contained a definition of invention which read as follows: “Invention
means an idea of an inventor which permits in practice the solution to a specific problem in
the field of technology”. In addition, industrial property includes trademarks, service marks,
commercial names and designations, geographical indications (indications of source and
appellations of origin) and the protection against unfair competition.
83
Ullah, Mahfuz, Intellectual Property Rights and Bangladesh, BELA and CFSD, Dhaka, June 2002.
41
Patents: A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a

process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical
solution to a problem. The history of patent preservation trails as far back as the Hellenistic
period. The modern patent system, however, was first introduced in Italy in 1474. It was
written in a declaration of the Republic of Venice that every new invention should be brought
in to the knowledge of the republic so that the inventor could receive its patent right 84.
To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a
patent application. According to Article 27.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (“the TRIPS Agreement”), all inventions are not patentable, there
are three requirements called the requirements or conditions of patentability. Thus in order to
be patentable, the invention must be new, it must involve an inventive step (or it must be non-
obvious), and it must be industrially applicable. After being patented, the patent owner has
the exclusive right to prevent or stop others from commercially exploiting the patented
invention. In other words, patent protection means that the invention cannot be commercially
made, used, distributed, imported or sold by others without the patent owner's consent. The
treaties WIPO administers, together with national and regional laws, make up the
international legal framework for patents. Some international treaties in this regard are- Paris
Convention, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), Budapest Treaty, Strasbourg Agreement
Concerning International Patent Classification etc. For patent registration, Bangladesh has
law from colonial regime called the Patent and Design Act, 1911, which require amending to
meet the present need. In this regard it is mentionable that, the draft of new Patent Act is
under process and we hope that the government will enact the law soon.
Industrial Designs: In a legal sense, an industrial design constitutes the ornamental or

aesthetic aspect of an article. An industrial design may consist of three dimensional features,
such as the shape of an article, or two dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color.
Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of products of industry and handicraft items:
from packages and containers to furnishing and household goods, from lighting equipment to
jewelry, and from electronic devices to textiles. Industrial designs may also be relevant to
graphic symbols, graphical user interfaces (GUI), and logos. In order to be protectable, an
84
Chowdhury, Ashoke, Intellectual Property Rights Protecting What is Ours, The Daily Star, 10 October
2017.
42
industrial design must, according to some laws, be new and, according to other laws, original.
The requirements of novelty or originality have been incorporated in Article 25.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement. Industrial designs are usually protected against unauthorized copying or
imitation. Under Article 26.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, the duration of protection available
shall amount to at least 10 years. International legal frameworks for industrial designs are
Hague Agreement, Paris Convention, WIPO Convention and Locarno Agreement. The
government of Bangladesh has already completed the draft of Industrial Design Act, 2012.
Plant Variety: A plant variety is a plant group within a single botanical taxon of the lowest
rank. It can be defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given
genotype or a combination of genotypes; distinguished from any other plant grouping by the
expression of at least one of those characteristics; and considered as a unit with regard to its
suitability for being propagated unchanged.
Trademarks: According to Article 15.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, a trademark is a sign

capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other
enterprises. A word or a combination of words, letters, and numerals can perfectly constitute
a trademark. But trademarks may also consist of drawings, symbols, three-dimensional
features such as the shape and packaging of goods, non-visible signs such as sounds or
fragrances, or color shades used as distinguishing features – the possibilities are almost
limitless. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property rights. Registration of trademark
confers an exclusive right means the trademark can be exclusively used by its owner, or
licensed to another party for use in return for payment. Registration provides legal certainty
and reinforces the position of the right holder, for example, in case of litigation. For
registration one need to file an application before the national or regional trademark office.
For the international protection of a trademark the owner has two options- either can file a
trademark application with the trademark office of each country in which he is seeking
protection or he can use WIPO’s Madrid System- which is a one stop solution for registering
and managing marks worldwide. The TRIPS Agreement sets out, in its Article 16, the rights
conferred on the owner of a trademark and the protection to be given in respect of well-
known marks. The TRIPS Agreement also deals, with the protectable subject matter, the term
of protection, the requirements of use as well as licensing and assignment. In our country, we
have Trademark Act, 2009 and Department of Patent, Design and Trademark (DPDT) for the
43
registration and protection of trademark in Bangladesh. Madrid Treaty, Madrid Protocol,

Paris Convention, Trademark Law Treaty, Vienna Agreement etc are the international
framework for trademark.
Trade Secret: A trade secret is some information or "secret" that is important to the business
and is not known to the public. It is a term commonly used to cover information that has
commercial value. The law on "trade secrets" is really about the protection of Confidential
Information.
Geographical Indication: A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that

have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that
origin. In order to function as a GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given
place. In addition, the qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should be
essentially due to the place of origin. Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of
production, there is a clear link between the product and its original place of production. The
TRIPS Agreement (Articles 22 to 24) establishes certain obligations as regards the protection
of geographical indications, which are defined therein, for the purposes thereof, 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.” The notions of “indications of source”
and of “appellations of origin,” which are used in the Paris Convention, encompass
geographical indications as defined by the TRIPS Agreement. Together with TRIPS, a
number of international treaties like Lisbon Agreement, Madrid Agreement, and Paris
Convention deal partly or entirely with the protection of geographical indications or
appellations of origin. It is obvious that prior to the implementation of pilot projects, the legal
framework and institutional framework for registration/management of GIs must be in place,
and in this regard the government of Bangladesh has already enacted Geographical Indication
Act, 2013.
44
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
INDUSTRIAL COPYRIGHT & TRADITIONAL

PROPERTY RELATED RIGHTS KNOWLEDGE
INDUSTRIAL PATENTS TRADE MARKS GEOGRAPHICAL

DESIGNS INDICATIONS
45
Chapter 3
Country Perspective
3.1 India
Indian Software Intellectual Property Rights: According to the Centre of Intellectual Property
Rights in India, the major intellectual properties typically fall into 4 major categories:
copyright, patent, trademark and design protection. In India, the intellectual property right of
computer software is covered under the Copyright Law. Accordingly, the copyright of
computer software is protected under the provisions of Indian Copyright Act 1957. Major
changes to Indian copyright law were introduced in 1994 and came into effect from 10 May
1995. These changes or amendments made the Indian copyright law one of the toughest in the
world.
The amendments to the Copyright Act introduced in June 1994 were, in themselves, a
landmark in India’s copyright history. For the first time in India, the Copyright Law clearly
explained:
 The rights of a copyright holder
 Position on rentals of software
 The rights of the user to make backup copies.
Since most software is easy to duplicate, and the copy is usually as good as original, the
Copyright Act amendment was needed. Some of the key aspects of the law are:
 According to section 14 of this Act, it is illegal to make or distribute copies of
copyrighted software without proper or specific authorization.
 The violator can be tried under both civil and criminal law.
 A civil and criminal action may be instituted for injunction, actual damages (including
violator’s profit) or statutory damages per infringement etc.
 Heavy punishment and fines for infringement of software copyright.
 Section 63B stipulates a minimum jail term of 7 days, which can be extended up to 3
years.
46
Government Initiatives to Protect IPR: The Indian Government has initiated various steps
towards intellectual property rights protection.
Indian enforcement agencies are working effectively and there is a decline in the levels of
piracy in India. In addition to intensifying raids against copyright violators, the Government
has taken a number of measures to strengthen the enforcement of copyright law. A summary
of these measures is given below:
a) The Government has brought out A Handbook of Copyright Law, to create awareness
of copyright laws amongst the stakeholders, enforcement agencies, professional users
like the scientific and academic communities and members of the public. Copies of
the Handbook have been circulated free of cost to the State and central government
officials, police personnel and to participants in various seminars and workshops on
IPR.
b) National Police Academy, Hyderabad and National Academy of Customs, Excise and
Narcotics conducted several training programs on copyright laws for the police and
customs officers. Modules on copyright infringement have been included in their
regular training programs.
c) The Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Government of India has initiated several measures in the past for strengthening the
enforcement of copyright that include constitution of a Copyright Enforcement
Advisory Council (CEAC), creation of separate cells in State police headquarters,
enforcing setting up of collective administration societies and organizations of
seminars and workshops to create greater awareness of copyright laws among the
enforcement personnel and the general public.
d) Special cells for copyright enforcement have so far been set up in 23 States and Union
Territories, i.e. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa,
Pondicherry, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal.
e) The government also initiates a number of seminars/workshops on copyright issues.
The participants in this seminar include enforcement personnel as well as
representatives of industry organizations.
47
As a consequence of the number of measures initiated by the Government, there has been
more activity in the enforcement of copyright laws in the country. Over the last few years, the
number of cases registered has gone up consistently.
3.2 Pakistan
IPR in Pakistan: Background
Currently, the IPR regime is governed by an integrated piece of legislation, called the
Intellectual Property Organization (IPO) of Pakistan Ordinance 2005. The earlier regime was
fragmented among the Ministry of Commerce (for trademarks), Ministry of Education
(copyrights) and Ministry of Industries and Production (for patents and designs). Now
copyright has come under the umbrella of an integrated IP office in Islamabad, called
the Intellectual Property Organization, attached to the Cabinet Division and directly reporting
to the Prime Minister.
Just like several other countries, Pakistan has also undergone several stages of reforms in the
governance structure and enforcement process of IPR since 2000. Pakistan enacted the
Intellectual Property Organization Act, 2012.
IPR Regime
The IP Regime broadly includes: Patents (something original having ingenuity and
newness in its process and design), Copyrights (right of printing and publishing any
written material of original nature that is not already published, under the name of the
author of the work or the publisher or the printer who undertakes such work for purposes of
general benefit), and Trademarks (any mark capable of being represented graphically,
which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of
another undertaking).
According to the website of the Intellectual Property Organization: ‘It is an autonomous and
corporate body and its governance structure is based on Public-Private partnership. The
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and six Federal Secretaries represent the Public
Sector and eleven Members, including the Chairman, represent the Private Sector’.
48
‘The Chairman, Policy Board, is a distinguished and experienced professional from the
Private Sector. The DG is the CEO and Secretary of the Policy Board is a Federal Secretary,
which is the highest position in the civil service. Thus the Government of Pakistan has
invested its finest human capital in the governance structure of IPO Pakistan’.
Its vision is: ‘To put Pakistan on the IP map of the world as a responsible country, by
promoting and protecting intellectual property rights’. And its mission is: ‘Integrating and
upgrading IP infrastructure for improved service delivery, increased public awareness and
enhanced enforcement coordination for achieving the goal of being an IP based nation’.
One would have thought that with such ‘distinguished and widely experienced professionals
from the Private Sector’ heading the organization and heavy weights from the various
ministries and with such a lofty vision and mission, its efforts to establish IPR in Pakistan
would be very focused and aggressive’.
But unfortunately, that has not been the case. Like many organizations with such
distinguished personalities, its noble vision has blurred and its mission has become a ‘mission
impossible’ (STRAIGHT TALK, Hamid Maker, 20 April 2014). The markets are flooded
with look-alike products and even the copy-rights logo is being illegally used to cheat the
consumers. To highlight the issue of IPR violations, IPO-Pakistan arranges several thrilling,
action-filled activities to celebrate the day, which usually include a walk, seminars and
conferences. In the past, these walks were usually organized by a leading IP law firm, in
collaboration with IPO-Pakistan.
They are often led by the Chairman, IPO, and the participants usually include the Registrar of
Trade Marks, Pakistan, Controller of Patents, Registrar of Designs, Registrar of Copyrights,
Chairman All Pakistan CD and DVD Shops Associations and those manufacturers who are
directly affected by IPR violations.
Some years back, a seminar was arranged by Helpline Trust, in collaboration with PIPRA,
which was attended by senior members of the Judiciary, IP Attorneys and IPO-Pakistan
officials. The Chairman and Members of the Pakistan Industrial and Intellectual Property
Rights Association (PIPRA) had also arranged a function to celebrate this auspicious day.
49
“Every creation of the human mind has an origin and is the creator’s property and every
creator has the legal right to possess, use and benefit from his creation. It has a direct
correlation between the level of intellectual property rights protection and foreign investment.
Pakistan’s software piracy level is estimated to be around 90 percent”.
If these learned and enlightened gentlemen really believe that mere seminars and walks will
succeed in the enforcement of IPR laws in Pakistan, then they will have to talk and walk for a
very long time to bring their vision into focus and make their mission a possibility.
Multinational companies, who are the main victims of the violations of IPR laws, because of
the use of lookalike logos and products by unscrupulous manufacturers, are also making an
effort to highlight the issue, but they also seem to be in disagreement on how to tackle the
problem. Consumer Protection Council of Helpline Trust has offered its platform to facilitate
the MNCs to create awareness against this menace, as consumers are also being cheated by
these lookalike products and logos, but so far no positive response has been received from
them, as they do not wish to be ‘commercialized’ and allow brand promotion.
For the record, there has been a marked improvement in the workings of the Registrar of
Trade Marks, Pakistan, Controller of Patent and Registrar of Designs and Registrar of
Copyrights offices, but the progress in this area is still very slow.
The US Trade Representative (USTR) of the American Government issues a Special report,
cataloguing specific IPR problems in dozens of countries worldwide. It has expressed
specific concerns about Pakistan, due to a lack of progress in this area and has put it on the
Priority Watch List.
The USTR has strongly suggested that Pakistan should take strong enforcement actions
against book piracy and aggressively prosecute IPR crimes, especially in CDs’, food,
beverages and medicines and ensure that its courts issue deterrent-level sentences for IPR
infringers. It has warned that the US will continue to monitor the IPR situation in Pakistan
closely. Let us hope that the new Government will take this problem more seriously and the
50
Intellectual Property Rights organization will take effective steps to curb this menace. Blatant
IPR violations are not only cheating the consumers, but also discouraging foreign investors to
invest in the country.
3.3 China
Since joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has strengthened its legal
framework and amended its IPR and related laws and regulations to comply with the WTO
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Despite
stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates.
According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in
the world85 (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollar in legitimate
business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese
market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies
are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies.
Although we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to
tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter
massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement
Group measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to
combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protection+ at the provincial levels, limited
resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education
regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy.
Registration as Best Protection: Although China is a party to international agreements to

protect intellectual property (including WIPO, Bern Convention, Paris Convention, among
others), a company must register its patents and trademarks with the appropriate Chinese
agencies and authorities for those rights to be enforceable in China. Copyrights do not need to
be registered but registration may be helpful in enforcement actions.
85
“Imitating property is theft.” 15 May 2003. The Economist. 27 February 2006 .
51
Patent: China’s first patent law was enacted in 1984 and has been amended twice (1992 and
2000) to extend the scope of protection. To comply with TRIPs, the latest amendment
extended the duration of patent protection to 20 years from the date of filing a patent
application. Chemical and pharmaceutical products, as well as food, beverages, and
flavorings are all now patentable.
China follows a ‘first-to file system’ for patents, which means patents are granted to those
that file first even if the filers are not the original inventors. This system is unlike the United
States, which recognizes the ‘first to invent’ rule, but is consistent with the practice in other
parts of the world, including the European Union. As a signatory to the Patent Cooperation
Treaty in 1994, China will perform international patent searches and preliminary
examinations of patent applications. Under China’s patent law, a foreign patent application
files by a person or firm without a business office in China must apply through an authorized
patent agent, while initial preparation may be done by anyone. Patents are filed with China’s
State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) in Beijing, while SIPO offices at the provincial and
municipal level are responsible for administrative enforcement.
Trademark: China’s trademark law was first adopted in 1982 and subsequently revised in
1993 and 2001. The new Trademark Law went into effect in October 2001, with
implementing regulations taking effect on September 15, 2002. The new Trademark Law
extended registration to collective marks, certification marks and three-dimensional symbols,
as required by TRIPs. China joined the Madrid Protocol in 1989, which requires reciprocal
trademark registration for member countries, which now includes the United States.
China has a ‘first-to register’ system that requires no evidence of prior use or ownership,
leaving registration of popular foreign marks open to third parties . However, the Chinese
Trademark Office has cancelled Chinese trademarks that were unfairly registered by local
Chinese agents or customers of foreign companies. Foreign companies seeking to distribute
their products in China are advised to register their marks and / or logos with the Trademark
Office. Further, any Chinese language translations and appropriate Internet domains should
also be registered.
52
As with patent registration, foreign parties must use the services of approved Chinese agents
when submitting the trademark application, however foreign attorneys or the Chinese agents
may prepare the application. Recent amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the
Trademark Law allow local branches or subsidiaries of foreign companies to register
trademarks directly without use of a Chinese agent.
Copyright: China’s copyright law was established in 1990 and amended in October 2001.
The new implementing rules came into force on September 15, 2002. Unlike the patent and
trademark protection, copyrighted works do not require registration for protection. Protection
is granted to individuals from countries belonging to the copyright international conventions
or bilateral agreements of which China is a member. However, copyright owners may wish to
voluntarily register with China’s National Copyright Administration (NCA) to establish
evidence of ownership, should enforcement actions become necessary.
Unfair Competition: China’s Unfair Competition Law provides some protection for
unregistered trademarks, packaging, trade dress and trade secrets. The Fair Trade Bureau,
under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has responsibility for the
interpretation and implementation of the Unfair Competition Law. Protection of company
names is also provided by SAIC. According to the TRIPs Agreement, China is required to
protect undisclosed information submitted to Chinese agencies in obtaining regulatory
approval for pharmaceutical and chemical entities from disclosure or unfair commercial use.
China’s State Drug Administration and Ministry of Agriculture oversee the marketing
approval of pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals, respectively.
China’s IPR Enforcement System: In 1998, China established the State Intellectual Property
Office (SIPO), with the vision that it would coordinate China’s IPR enforcement efforts by
merging the patent, trademark and copyright offices under one authority. However, this has
yet to occur. Today, SIPO is responsible for granting patents (national office), registering
semiconductor layout designs (national office), and enforcing patents (local SIPO offices), as
well as coordinating domestic foreign-related IPR issues involving copyrights, trademarks
and patents.
53
Protection of IP in China follows a two-track system. The first and most prevalent is the
administrative track, whereby an IP rights holder files a complaint at the local administrative
office. The second is the judicial track, whereby complaints are filed through the court system
(China has established specialized IP panels in its civil court system throughout the country).
Determining which IP agency has jurisdiction over an act of infringement can be confusing.
Jurisdiction of IP protection is diffused throughout a number of government agencies and
offices, with each typically responsible for the protection afforded by one statute or one
specific area of IP-related law. There may be geographical limits or conflicts posed by one
administrative agency taking a case, involving piracy or counterfeiting that also occurs in
another region (in recognition of these difficulties, some regional IP officials have discussed
plans for creating cross-jurisdictional enforcement procedures). China’s courts also have
rules regarding jurisdiction over infringing or counterfeit activities, and the scope of potential
orders.
For administrative enforcement actions, the following is a list of the major players. Again this
list is not exhaustive, as other agencies, such as State Drug Administration (for
pharmaceutical counterfeits) or the Ministry of Culture (for copyright materials and markets)
may also play a role in the enforcement process. In most cases, administrative agencies
cannot award compensation to a rights holder. They can, however, fine the infringer, seize
goods or equipment used in manufacturing products, and / or obtains information about the
source of goods being distributed.
Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ): China’s

standard setting agency is primarily tasked with ensuring Chinese product quality and
standards. AQSIQ also handles infringements of registered trademarks, when the infringing
products are inferior or shoddy goods. AQSIQ has also issued administrative regulations
regarding protection of geographic indications separately recognized by China.
State Administration on Industry and Commerce (SAIC), Trademark Office: The Trademark
Office, under the State Administration on Industry and Commerce (SAIC) maintains
authority over trademark registration, administrative recognition of well-known marks, and
enforcement of trademark protection. The Fair Trade Bureau handles disputes arising under
54
the Law to Counter Unfair Competition, including trade secret matters. In enforcement
efforts, SAIC has the power to investigate the case. When an infringement is determined,
SAIC has the power to order that the sale of infringing items cease and to stop further
infringement, order the destruction of infringing marks or products, impose fines, and remove
machines used to produce counterfeit goods.
State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO): SIPO is responsible for the examination of foreign
and domestic patents and supervision of local SIPO bureaus. Provincial offices generally
handle the administrative enforcement of patent complaints.
National Copyright Administration (NCA): NCA is responsible for copyright administration

and enforcement. NCA is also responsible for nationwide copyright issues, including
investigating infringement cases, administering foreign-related copyright issues, developing
foreign-related arbitration rules and supervising administrative authorities. Although
administrative remedies are available, NCA generally encourages complainants to use the
court system due to lack of personnel.
General Administration of Customs (GAC): The Customs Regulations ban the import / export
of IPR-infringing goods. In order for Customs to enforce this ban, the IP holder must record
its IP with Customs. The recordable certificate issued by Customs is valid for seven years and
is renewable for seven-year periods. When a rights holder suspects infringing goods are about
to enter or exit China, he / she may submit a written application to Customs at the suspected
point of entry or exist where protection is sought. When Customs’ investigation reveals a
case of infringement, it has the authority to confiscate the goods, and may destroy or remove
the infringing goods, and impose a fine.
Public Security Bureau (police)/ Procuratorate (prosecutors): Under enforcement provisions

of TRIPs, China must provide IP remedies through criminal enforcement for commercial
scale piracy and counterfeiting. China’s laws and regulations stipulate that IP administrative
authorities and Customs may transfer egregious IP infringement cases to police and
prosecutors (procuratorate) for initiating criminal investigation. Despite these criminal
provisions, most IP cases continued to be handled through the administrative system. Under
55
Chinese law, individuals also have the right to prosecute criminal cases (zisu), which has
rarely been used.
Regional IPR Bureau: In an attempt to coordinate local IP enforcement efforts, some

provinces and municipalities in China have established IPR bureaus or IPR committees to
coordinate public awareness campaigns and, to a more limited extent, enforcement. A local
IPR bureau is generally a good source for companies seeking information on local regional
enforcement mechanisms.
Judicial System: The second track companies can pursue is through civil actions in the local
People’s Court. Since 1993, China has maintained Intellectual Property Tribunals in the
Intermediate People’s Courts and Higher People’s Courts throughout the countries. The total
volume of civil IP litigation in China is considerably less than administrative litigation.
Though small companies may prefer to pursue the administrative route, it is expected that the
number of IP litigation cases will significantly increase with recent changes in IP laws.
Appeals of administrative IPR determinations, such as fines, are generally made to
Administrative Tribunals of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), while the Criminal Tribunals
of the SPC are likely to hear criminal cases.
3.4 Korea
Korea has made progress on resolving some intellectual property rights (IPR) issues,
including the passage and implementation of Special Inspection Team (SIT) legislation. The
U.S. and Korean governments have continued to hold consultations on IPR issues during
2003 as part of the bilateral quarterly trade consultations. Concern, however, remains with
respect to the legal regime of Korea on the protection of temporary copies, technical
protection measures, Online Service Providers (OSP) liability, reciprocity provisions
regarding database protection, ex parte relief, the lack of full retroactive protection for pre-
existing copyrighted works and copyright term extension. In addition, new concerns have
arisen over continuing book piracy in universities, street vendor sales of illegally copied
DVDs, counterfeiting of consumer products, protection of pharmaceutical patents, and lack of
coordination between Korean health and IPR authorities on drug product approvals for
marketing.
56
IPR Enforcement: In an important step forward, Korea passed legislation in July 2003 to give
police powers to the SIT, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication
(MIC). This permits IT inspectors to conduct raids on commercial firms and other institutions
suspected of using illegal software. Korean police and prosecutors are conducting raids
against software end-users more consistently, many of which are initiated based on leads
provided by the software industry. There is still some concern, however, regarding the
transparency of enforcement process.
The Korean government provides regular quarterly reports on SIT inspections, the disposition
of cases by prosecutors and court verdict reports (i.e., acquittals, convictions, punishments).
At the same time, Korea has not provided what is considered to be sufficient information on
many of the leads provided by industry, which have resulted in raids.
Korea passed amendments to the patent, trademark and utility model laws that increased both
fines and terms of imprisonment for IPR violators. In addition, the Copyright Act was
amended—and strengthened by enhancing technical measure protections through the
prohibition of the production and trafficking of devices aimed at circumventing technical
measures and by introducing a framework for a ‘notice and takedown system’ under which
an Online Service Provider (OSP) would be given a legal incentive to respond promptly and
positively to requests from right holders to take down or cut off access to sites where pirated
activities are taking place. However such amendments are not substantive enough for Korean
law to fully comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), which Korea has indicated it
intends to join.
Sound Recordings: Korea needs to demonstrate a more effective response to the challenges
faced by the changing nature of digital copyright piracy that require both new legal tools and
substantial improvements in enforcement practices. Important aspects of Korea’s copyright
law structure have failed to keep pace with the transformation of the market resulting from
digitization and high-speed access to the Internet.
57
A critical element missing in Korea’s Copyright Act is the failure to give exclusive rights for
the on-line dissemination of recorded music. Korea should introduce farsighted legislation
that provides a full set of exclusive rights for sound recording producers.
Technological Protection Measures: With regard to technological protection measures

(TPM), Korea’s Copyright Act falls short by not clearly protecting technologies that manage
who can access a work. Another deficiency is that the current law does not prohibit the act of
circumvention itself, but only the creation or distribution of circumvention tools. Until
changes are made, Korea will not have brought its TPM provision into compliance with the
global minimum standards embodied in WCP and WPPT.
While certain provisions for definition of Online Server Provider liability of the Copyright
Act were harmonized with the Computer Program Protection Act (CPPA) provisions, further
clarification is required.
Library Exceptions: Concerning library exceptions under the Copyright Act amendments, a
notice period of at least 30 days must be given to the rights holder prior to the unauthorized
digitization of their works to minimize the negative effect. Under the current law, library
exceptions still apply only to literary works and not to broadcasts, performances and source
recordings. In line with the international trend, Korea should extend the term of copyright
protection for works and sound recordings to the life of the author plus 70 or 95 years from
date of first publication where the author is a legal entity.
Computer Program Protection Act (CPPA): The modernization of the CPPA to meet current
challenges as well as to comply with new global norms continued on an incremental basis in
2003. The Korean government also has accepted a suggestion that Online Service Providers
(OSP) immediately stop infringing activity upon request of the copyright owner for the
purpose of revising or updating programs, or for encryption research.
The Copyright Act and the CPPA need to be strengthened further. Particularly, temporary
copies should be of highest priority in establishing an effective IPR policy that goes beyond
the minimal international obligations contained in the TRIPS Agreement, Berne Convention.
58
Book and Video-DVD Piracy: The Publication and Printing Business Promotion Act allows
private sector involvement in enforcement measures against book piracy and gives the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism the administrative authority to inspect and to dispose of
illegal copies of copyrighted books. Adequate enforcement has been an issue. Digital piracy
needs to be addressed with stronger enforcement efforts and deterrent penalties. Despite
active enforcement effort to date, video-DVD piracy in Korea continues to grow.
Patent and Trademark Acts: Korean patent law is fairly comprehensive, offering protection
to most products and technologies. Over the past year, changes to the Patent Act strengthened
and streamlined the application process. The Korean Industrial Property Office (KIPO) now
has more power to protect technologies exchanged through the Internet.
Deficiencies remain in the interpretation of claims and in the treatment of dominant patents.
While KIPO has amended Korea’s laws to address U.S. concerns on restrictions on patent
term extension for certain pharmaceutical, agrochemical and animal health products, which
are subject to lengthy clinical trials and domestic testing requirements, problems remain.
Among others, there has been lack of coordination between Korean health and safety and
intellectual property officials, which has resulted in granting market approval for products
that may infringe on existing patents.
Korea adheres to the Madrid Protocol, an international trademark application system, which
entered into force in Korea in April 2003. The Trademark Act was amended to become
compliant with the Madrid Protocol and the Trademark Law Treaty. The Madrid system
streamlines and simplifies international application procedures for trademarks and introduced
a retroactive damage compensation system for registrants.
The Trademark Act was amended in March 1998 to strengthen provisions that prohibit the
registration of trademarks without the authorization of foreign trademark holders by allowing
examiners to reject any registrations made in ‘bad faith’. American companies are
discouraged from pursuing legal remedies—in effect creating a barrier to effective
enforcement. In particular these problems still arise with respect to ‘sleeper’ trademark
59
registrations. These registrations—although a clear infringement of the rights of legitimate

trademark owners—are not challenged and removed.
At the same time, a Domain Name Dispute Resolution Committee was created in 2002 to
arbitrate domain name disputes without going through the courts. Legislation that would
enhance the legal basis of the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Committee and prohibit
cyber-squatting has been introduced.
Textile designs were afforded copyright protection (in addition to protection under Korean
design law) through the July 2000 revisions to the Copyright Act. Copyright protection of
textile designs remains problematic largely because of the lack of enforcement. The U.S.
government continues to urge Korean authorities to increase efforts to halt the trade in
counterfeit goods. In an effort to enhance border enforcement against the exports of
counterfeit products, the Korean Customs Service has upgraded its computer system.
Korean laws on unfair competition and trade secrets provide a level of trade secret protection
in Korea, but are insufficient in some instances. U.S. firms report that, although Korean law
prohibits the release of business confidential information, in some instances government
officials have not sufficiently protected this proprietary information and the trade secrets
were made available to Korean competitors or to their trade associations. In any case, the
Korean Food & Drug Administration (KFDA) revised the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act,
implementing regulations to stipulate that submitted data must be protected from authorized
disclosure when the submitting party requests protection.
The protection of intellectual property is perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing
American business in Korea. This issue goes to the heart of what American companies
believe is their greatest strength—technological innovation and the products and services that
result from it. It is important that Korean companies—in all sectors—and the Korean
government make efforts to ensure that the intellectual property of American companies is
fully protected. Only in this way will South Korea be perceived as an open and equitable
market that is hospitable to foreign investors. Anything less would lead companies to develop
60
severe doubts about the Korean business environment and possibly eventually lead them to
refrain from taking advantage of the promises offered by that market.
3.5 Malaysia
The protection of intellectual property rights is said to be the main motivation for inventors to
create new inventions. It also encourages commercialization, technology transfer and it
promotes international trade.
The protection system of intellectual property gives exclusive rights to IP owners to control
and exploit their intellectual property. This includes the rights to make, use, distribute, sell
and import. They can also commence legal action against the parties infringing their rights.
However, many are unaware of the importance of intellectual property, as well as the
existence of the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO), which has the main
task of administering intellectual property rights in Malaysia.
In a recent survey, it was clearly evident that the percentage of public awareness about
intellectual property is very low and is only understood by parties with interest or institutions
and organizations which are involved in this field. Intellectual property is an important
component in a country’s economic development: continuous creation of intellectual property
from time to time will increase investment and trading activities. Intellectual property, which
is protected under the Malaysian laws, includes Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Industrial
Design, Geographical Indication and Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuit. Plant Variety is
also another component of IP which is under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture
(MOA).
Patent
The Patents Act 1983 and the Patents Regulations 1986 govern patent protection in Malaysia.
An applicant may file a patent application directly if he is domiciled or resident in Malaysia.
A foreign application can only be filed through a registered patent agent in Malaysia acting
on behalf of the applicant.
61
Similar to legislation in other countries, an invention is patentable if it is new, involves an

inventive step and is industrially applicable. The patent application is made available for
public inspection after 18 months period from either the date of priority or date of filing of
application.
In accordance with TRIPS, the Patents Act stipulates a protection period of 20 years from the
date of filing of an application. Under the Act, the Utility Innovation Certificate provides for
an initial duration of ten years protection from the date of filing of the application and
extendable for further two consecutive terms of five years each subject to use. The owner of a
patent has the right to exploit the patented invention, to assign or transmit the patent, and to
conclude a license contract.
Malaysia has acceded to the PCT on 16 May 2006 Effective from 16 August 2006; the PCT
international application can be filed at MyIPO where MyIPO is acting as the receiving office
for the international filing of PCT application.
Trademark
Trademark protection is governed by the Trademarks Act 1976 and the Trademarks
Regulations 1997. The Act provides protection for trademarks and service marks in Malaysia.
No person or enterprise other than its proprietor or authorized users may use them.
Infringement action can be initiated against abusers. The period of protection is ten years,
renewable for a period of every ten years thereafter. The proprietor of the trade mark or
service mark has the right to deal or assign as well as to license its use.
In accordance with TRIPS, Malaysia prohibits the usage of well-known trademarks by

unauthorized persons and provides for border measures to prohibit counterfeit trade marks
from being imported into Malaysia. Malaysia accedes to the Nice and Vienna Agreement on
28 June 2007 which was enforced on 28 September 2007. Nice Agreement is concerning the
International Classification of Goods and Services for the purpose of the registration of marks
whereas the Vienna Agreement establishes a classification for marks, which consist of or
contain figurative elements. Both agreements are significant to facilitate trademark
62
registration. Local applicants may file their trademarks applications on their own, while
foreign applicants must go through registered trademark agents.
Copyright
The Copyright Act 1987 provides comprehensive protection for copyright works. The Act
outlines the nature of works eligible for copyright (which includes computer programs), the
scope of protection, and the manner in which the protection is accorded. There is no
registration for copyright works.
Copyright protection for literary, musical or artistic works is for the duration of the life of the
author and 50 years after his death. In sound recordings, broadcasts and films, copyright
protection is for 50 years after the works are first published or made.
The Act also provides protection for the performer’s rights in a live performance. These
rights shall continue to subsist for fifty years, from the beginning of the calendar year
following the year in which the live performance was performed.
A unique feature of the Act is the inclusion of provisions for its enforcement. The amendment
of the Copyright Act 1987, which enforced on 1 October 2003, confers power of arrest
(including arrest without warrant) to Enforcement Officers of the Ministry of Domestic Trade
and Consumer Affairs. A special team of officers of the MDTCA were appointed to enforce
the Act. These officers are empowered to enter premises suspected of containing infringing
copies and to search and seize infringing copies and contrivances.
Industrial Design
Industrial design protection in Malaysia is governed by the Industrial Designs Act 1996 and
Industrial Designs Regulations 1999. The Act makes the rights of registered industrial
designs personal property, capable of assignment and transmission by operation of the law.
To be eligible for registration, industrial designs must be new and not include a method of
construction or design that is dictated solely by function. In addition, the design of the article
63
must not be dependent upon the appearance of another article of which it forms an integral
part.
Local applicants can file registrations individually or through a registered industrial designs
agent. However, foreign applicants will need to seek the services of a registered industrial
designs agent. Registered industrial designs are protected for an initial period of five years,
which may be extended for another two 5- year terms, providing a total protection period of
15 years.
Geographical Indication
The Geographical Indications Act 2000 provides protection, upon registration, to goods
following the name of the place where the goods are produced. A given quality, reputation or
other characteristic of the goods must be essentially attributable to their geographical origin.
This protection is applicable to goods such as wine and spirit (example ‘French wines’), or
natural or agricultural products or any product of handicraft for the industry. Geographical
indications which are contrary to public order or morality shall not be protected under the
Act.
Layout- Design of Integrated Circuit

The Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits Act 2000 provides for the protection of layout
designs of integrated circuits based on originality, which are the creator’s own invention.
There is no registration for the layout design of an integrated circuit.
The duration of protection of such layouts is 10 years from the date of its commercial
exploitation or 15 years from the date of creation (if not commercially exploited). The Act
also allows for action to be taken by the owner if such right recognized under the Act has
been infringed. The rights can also be transferred either partly or wholly by way of
assignment, license, wills or through the enforcement of law.
The Act is implemented, in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement, to provide a guarantee to
investors in Malaysia’s electronics industry and to ensure the growth of technology in the
country.
64
The International Agreements, Conventions and Treaties

Malaysia’s participation in activities relating to intellectual property at the regional and
international levels is indeed important, to ensure that Malaysia is at par with the current
development of intellectual property. To meet the international standard on intellectual
property, Malaysia has become a party to the following Agreements, Conventions and
Treaties:
(i) The Paris Convention 1883

The Paris Convention 1883 was established for the protection of intellectual property,
consists of protection for patents, trademarks and industrial designs. Malaysia joined the Paris
Convention on 1 January 1989.
(ii) The Berne Convention 1886

The Berne Convention was established for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works such
as novels, short stories, poems, plays, songs, operas, drawing, sculpture and architectural
works. Malaysia became a party to the Berne Convention on 1 October 1990.
(iii) Convention establishing World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO 1967)

WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations. This is an international
organization dedicated to promote the creation, use and protection of works of the human
mind. It helps to ensure that the rights of the creators and owners of intellectual property are
well-protected worldwide and the inventors and authors are recognized and rewarded for their
ingenuity. Malaysia became a member of WIPO on 1 January 1989.
(iv)The Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement 1994 (TRIPS
Agreement)
World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only international organization dealing with the
rules of trade between nations. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters
and importers to conduct their business. On 1 January 1995, Malaysia officially became one
of the 146 founding members of the WTO. As a member, Malaysia is a signatory to the
TRIPS Agreement.
65
The purpose of the TRIPS Agreement is to ensure that adequate standards of protection of
trade related aspects of intellectual property rights exist in all member countries. The TRIPS
Agreement has widened the scope of protection offered under the prior international
conventions and set out the minimum standards of IPR protection that must be observed by
the WTO members in each areas of intellectual property.
The main areas covered under this Agreement are patents and the protection of plant
varieties; copyright and related rights as well as protection of computer programs;
undisclosed information, including trade secrets and test data; trademarks, including service
marks; geographical indications, including appellations of origin; industrial design and the
layout designs of integrated circuits.
Another main provision of the TRIPS Agreement deals with procedures and remedies under
domestic law, to ensure that the enforcement of IPR is effective. These provisions specify the
civil and administrative procedures and remedies, as well as criminal procedures and
penalties that must be available in domestic judicial or administrative institutions, in
accordance with certain general principles. The obligations to implement the TRIPS
Agreement apply equally to all member countries with specified transition periods.
Malaysia, as a developing country, was given five years to comply with the TRIPS
Agreement, viz. until 1 January 2000. By the end of the year 2001, Malaysia’s intellectual
property laws were TRIPS compliant.
(v)Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Malaysia acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on 16 May 2006, to take advantage
of patent filing through an international filing system. PCT, which was enforced on 16
August 2006, is a treaty that makes it possible to seek patent protection in more than one
country, through a single application.
(vi) Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for
the Purposes of the Registration of Marks 1957 (Nice Agreement)
The Nice Agreement is an international agreement relating to the international agreement and
relating to the International Classification of Goods and Services. It is a harmonization of
66
classification system for goods and services for trademark registration purposes. Malaysia
acceded to the Nice Agreement on 28 June 2007 which came into force on 28 September
2007.
(vii) The Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative

Elements of Marks 1973 (Vienna Agreement)
The Vienna Agreement is an agreement relating to the classification of figurative elements of
trademarks according to International Classifications. Malaysia acceded to the Vienna
Agreement on 28 June 2007, which came into force on 28 September 2007.
67
Chapter 4
IPR: An Empirical Overview of Bangladesh Situation
4.1 Copyright
The Copyright Act, 2000 was approved by the President on 18 July 2000, as Act No. XXVIII
of 2000 which was amended on 18 May, 2005.
Under the Act, an ‘infringing copy’ means (section 2 (8))
(a) Regarding a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction
of the whole work or a part thereof, except in the form of a
cinematograph film;
(b) Regarding a cinematograph film or a photograph embodying the whole
or a part thereof, made on any medium by electro-magnetic device or
any other equipment or process;
(c) Regarding a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same
sound recording made by any means;
(d) Regarding a programme or performance in which a broadcast
reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under this Act, a
cinematograph film or a sound recording of such programme or
performance in whole or in part thereof, if such reproduction, copy or
sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions
of this Act;
(e) Regarding a computer programme, reproduction or use of the whole
work or a part thereof.
Copyright applies to the following types of “work” (section 2 (11)):
(a) a literary, dramatic musical or artistic work;
68
(b) a cinematograph film;

(d) a sound recording; and
(e) a broadcast;
Under the Act, the following are “authors” capable of registering a copyright (section 2 (24)):
(a) regarding a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;
(b) regarding a musical work, the composer;
(c) regarding an artistic work, except photograph, the artist;
(d) regarding a photograph, the person taking the photograph;
(e) regarding a cinematograph film or a sound recording, the producer, and
(f) regarding any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is

computer-generated, the person or institution who causes the work to
be created;
In the Copyright Act 2000 (section 3), “publication” means making a work available to the
public by issuing of copies or by communicating the work to the public. However, in general,
the following works shall not come within the meaning of publication, namely:
(a) dramatic, dramatic-musical, cinematograph film or musical works;
(b) recitation of a literary work in public;
(c) communication through wire, wireless and any other medium,

broadcasting of a literary or an artistic work;
(d) exhibition of artistic works;
(e) construction of a work of architecture.
Finally, “copyright” means, in the Copyright Act 2000 (section 14):
any right, subject to the provisions of this Act, to do, or authorize the doing, of any of the
following acts in respect of a work or substantial part thereof, namely:
(1) regarding a literary, dramatic or musical work, except a computer programme

(a) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it
in any medium by electronic means;
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public except copies already in
circulation;
69
(c) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;

(d) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work;
(e) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the
work;
(f) to broadcast the work or to communicate the broadcast of the work to
the public by a loudspeaker or any other similar instrument;
(g) to make any adaptation of the work;
(h) to do, regarding a translation or adaptation of the work, any of the acts
specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (a) to(h) .
(2) regarding a computer programme
(a) to do any of the acts specified in clause (1);
(b) to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire any copy of the
computer programme, regardless of whether such copy has been sold
or given on hire on earlier occasions.
(3) regarding an artistic work
(a) to reproduce the work in any material form including depiction in three
dimensions of a two dimensional work or in two dimensions of a three
dimensional work;
(b) to publicize the work to the public;
(c) to issue copies of the work to the public except copies already in
circulation;
(d) to include the work in any cinematograph film;
(e) to make any adaptation of the work;
(f) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified
in relation to the work in sub-clauses (a) to (d);
(g) to broadcast the work or to communicate the broadcast of the work to
the public by a loudspeaker or any other similar instrument.
(4) regarding a cinematograph film
(a) to make a copy of the work, including a photograph of any image
forming part thereof in vcp, vcr, dvd or any other form;
70
(b) to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film in
vcp, vcr, dvd or any other form, regardless of whether such copy has
been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions;
(c) to publicize and display among general public any auditory or visual
copy of the film in vcp, vcr, dvd or any other form;
(5) regarding a sound recording
(a) to make any other sound recording embodying it;
(b) to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the sound
recording regardless of whether such copy has been sold or given on
hire on earlier occasions;
(c) to communicate the sound recording to the public.
The copy which has been sold once shall be deemed to be a copy already in circulation.
Patents and designs, as defined in the Patents and Designs Act 1911, cannot be copyright
(section 16).
If any question of fact arises whether a work has been published or not, or as to the date on
which a work was published, the dispute shall be referred to the Board of Copyright, whose
decision thereon shall be final (section 6). Yet, if the Board is satisfied that the issue of copies
or communication to the public was of an insignificant nature, it shall not be deemed to be
publication. The Board will also decide any dispute between an author and a person to whom
he has sold copyright, with power to protect the author from unfair terms in any agreement
(section 20).
The Act establishes (section 9) a Copyright Office, controlled by the Registrar of Copyrights,
who is appointed by the Government of the day. There is also a Copyright Board, of 2 to 6
members, with a Chairman, also appointed by the Government (section 11). The Chairman of
the Board shall be a person who is, or has been, a judicial officer not below the rank of a
District Judge in the selection grade or an officer not below the rank of an Additional
Secretary to the Government or who is an advocate qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme
Court (section 12 (4)). The Board’s proceedings are deemed to be both a civil and a criminal
court proceeding (section 12 (5)). The Board makes decisions by majority vote or, if there is
no majority, by decision of the Chairman (section 12(2)).
71
Under the Copyright Act, 2000, the author of a work is deemed the first owner of its
copyright (section 17). Where the author is an employee, the general rule is that the copyright
belongs to the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
The owner of the copyright may sell or give the copyright to anyone, even copyright in a
future work, but the sale or gift must be in writing and signed by the copyright owner (section
18 – 19). In the absence of specification in the sale or gift document, a sale or gift of
copyright is deemed to be for 5 years and for the whole of Bangladesh (section 19).
An author enjoys copyright for his lifetime and his right continues 60 years after his death
(section 24). Copyright in a film, sound recording, photograph or computer programme, and
copyright where the State, a local government or an international organization is first owner,
lasts for 60 years from publication (section 26-28A). A performer’s right lasts for 50 years
from the performance (section 35).
The owners of films must deposit a copy of the film with the Bangladesh Film Archive
(section 38 (2)). There are provisions for registration of copyright societies (section 41). A
person who is not a citizen, but domiciled in Bangladesh, can register a copyright in
Bangladesh but the Government may, by order, restrict such rights of citizens of countries,
who are not domiciled in Bangladesh, which do not give “adequate” protection to the rights
of Bangladeshi authors (section 70). The Government also has power to extend copyright
protection to foreign works (of persons not domiciled in Bangladesh) by order (section 69).
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed (section 71) when any person, without a
license:
1. does anything, the exclusive right to do which is the right of the owner of the
copyright;
2. permits, for profit, any place to be used for the performance of a work in public where
such performance constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he
was not aware, and had no reasonable ground for believing, that such performance
would be an infringement of copyright; or
3. when any person makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade
displays or offers for sale or hire, or distributes either for the purpose of trade or to
72
such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or by way of trade
exhibits in public; or imports into Bangladesh, any infringing copies of the work.
Note that the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a
cinematograph film is deemed to be an "infringing copy".
The Copyright Act 2000, section 72 contains “fair use” exemptions common in most such
statutes across the world. It is not an infringement of copyright to copy a work for study,
research, reporting news (including judicial proceedings), by the Parliamentary Secretariat for
Members of Parliament, which is a “reasonable extract” or by an educational institution, of
“short passages” in a work mainly of non-copyright material, by a library of not more than 3
copies or by an educational institution for the purpose of study.
Finally, the Copyright Act 2000 (section 75) contains civil remedies for infringement of
copyright, including injunction, damages and accounts. Defendants have the defence of
proving that they were reasonably unaware of the plaintiff’s rights (section 76). The
Copyright Act 2000 also makes infringement of copyright and other rights under the Act a
crime, or abetting the same, with penalties of 6 months to 4 years imprisonment and
50,000Tk to 200,000Tk fine, however the crime must be proven to have been committed
“willingly” (section 82). There are enhanced penalties for second and subsequent offences
(section 83).
The Copyright Act 2000 was amended once, in 2005. There have been many demands for
further amendment but no action has been taken on these so far.
Government has enacted copyright rules on 11 September 2006 to implement the copyright
law properly and smoothly (Annex D)
Copyright Law and its Actual Practice in Bangladesh
Copyright Office is responsible for issuing copyright registration in Bangladesh. They issue
certificate on the basis of application. Registration certificate is issued within 30 days after
receiving application, provided that there is no complaint / objection against issuing
certificate. The process of copyright registration flowchart is presented below:
73
Application made by the applicant

(with the help of help-desk)
Application received and file opened by

the consent of Registrar (within 3 days)
Notice to applicant, if any

Verification by the designated Team wrong information found
(within 3 days) and make correction
(within 7 days of decision)
Chalan (as application fee) verification

Compulsory waiting time by the
report (By indexer, use website, 7 days)
Notify applicant, make

Final verification of the papers (by the correction, if any wrong
assistant examiner, 3 days) (within 7 days of
decision)
Examine Case (Within 3 days by the

law, 30 days
Examiner)
Opinion of the Deputy Registrar of

Copyright (Within 3 days)
Wait for the complaint, if any (Up to 30 days

from the application received)
Present file to the Copyright Registrar (On

31st day of the application)
Decision, if no complaint (On the same day)
Investigation after Hearing, if any complaint (on the 45th day of Issuance of
complaint, if necessary the application) Certificate (within
(within 31 to 44 days 7 days of decision)
of application)
Decision after settlement Decision after settlement
of complaint against the of complaint in favor of
Case filed applicant the applicant
74
Related data has been given below on the issuing of copyright registration for all unique
creation and the total revenue earned for the process of certificate issuing for the fiscal year
2014-2015:
Information on Copyright Registration in 2014-15

Serial Name of the Description of Registration
Num. month Literary Computer Fine Film Music/audio- Total Number Revenue
work software arts video applications of Income
recording received Certificate
given
1. July 2014 53 51 54000/-
2. August 2014 28 60 28000/-
3. September2014 41 18 41000/-
4. October 2014 21 9 30 - 1 61 29 61000/-
5. November2014 18 16 17 - 2 53 38 53000/-
6. December2014 18 8 13 - - 39 49 77000/-
7. January 2015 20 2 19 - 3 47 81 78000/-
8. February 2015 19 4 5 1 - 29 28 37000/-
9. March 2015 28 9 17 - 4 58 79 92000/-
10. April 2015 18 6 11 - - 35 31 51000/-
11. May 2015 20 8 12 - - 40 38 62000/-
12. June 2015 13 6 17 - 8 44 40 74000/-
Total Taka 528 529 708000/-
Table 1
From cases shown in the above table, 2 cases have been observed. One of the two is the
copyright registration of the logo of a firm named ‘Gurukul’ of which inventor is Md. Monir
Al Islam. The other is the registration of a poetry book entitled ‘Shargo Hote Name Chadni’
issued on behalf of Momotaj Renu. I discussed with both of them. It was informed that they
received registration certificate in due time (shown in the flow chart).
0.25% 5%
Literature work
Computer software
43%
35%
Fine arts
Film
Music/audio-video
recording
17%
75
Figure 1
Distribution of different items of copyright in the year 2014-15 (from October-2014 to June-2015, because
copyright office could not provide itemwise detailed information for the beginning months of July, August and
September 2014).
Distribution shows that participation of literary work is high and film remains lowest. Fine art
stood 2nd position while computer software secured 3rd in the performance list. Music
contributed only 5%, but better than film which is almost invisible.
Case Study-1: Bangladesh Copyright

In 2011Taskforce on Copyright confiscated many copies of 99 pirated books (Annex E). One
publisher named Brothers Publications has pirated those books. Books were taken away from
the publisher’s house and were sealed in 3 depots under the custody of copyright office. But
immediately after the seizing of the pirated books the Copyright Registrar and his team were
bearing too much pains, undue external pressure and threats of harassment.
In the same day on 02 January 2011, a general diary (GD) was recorded in the
Mohammadpur Police Station; the number of the GD was 36. Finally the case was sent to the
court and verdict came out in favor of the pirate publisher. Court’s observations and
directives on it were:
1. None of the writers of 99 books applied as per the article 69 of the Copyright Act
2000 that their copyrights were violated.
2. World Trade Organization exempted LDCs up to July 2013 in compliance of the
provisions of the international copyright law (ref: memo number of the WTO cell of
the Ministry of Commerce WTO-4/1(4)/05/02, dated-05.01.2006). So the provision of
the article 82 of the copyright act of Bangladesh is not applicable in case of the 99
books seized by the law enforcing authority.
3. These books created an opportunity for the poor and talented students of a poor
country like Bangladesh which will ultimately play a vital role in higher education of
the country. So the accuse of crime is not consistent with this case.
The government again brought this case to the High Court and High Court left the case as it
was in the lower court, i.e., has given the verdict in favor of the pirate publisher as well as
76
owner of the books, which was again remained same in the Honorable Supreme Court.
Finally pirating activities were inspired.
Case Study-2: September 2007
Rock ’n Roll in Bangladesh: Protecting IP Rights across Borders
This is an abridged version of a case study written by Abul Kalam Azad, Professor of
Economics at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, and first published by the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in “ Managing the Challenges of WTO Participation: 45 Case
Studies.” Professor Azad presents the case as a successful example of how international
intellectual property agreements enabled a rock band in Bangladesh to challenge
successfully the unauthorized use of one of their songs by a filmmaker in India.
“It’s daylight robbery in Murder, screamed a cult Bangladeshi rock band - and its plea has
been heard,” wrote the Telegraph of Calcutta in its front-page story on the Hindi movie,
Murder (Telegraph, 20 May 2004). Miles, a popular Bangladeshi music band had accused
music director Anu Malik, a music-mogul of the Mumbai movie world, of pirating one of its
original.
Manam, Hamin and other members of Miles were alerted by fans that their song Phiriye Dao
Amar Prem (Give me back my love) had been copied in the soundtrack of Bollywood block-
buster movie, Murder. When the song Jana Jane Jana was played in the movie, the band
members could hardly believe their ears. Only the language was different — Hindi.
Otherwise, “the lyrics are a shadow of ours, the tune is the same. Even the beat break-ups, the
use of guitar and filler notes are the same,” guitarist and vocalist, Hamin, told the Bombay
Times.
The band composed the song Phiriye Dao in Bengali for their 1993 album, Prathasa (Hope).
The song was also included in their 1997 album ‘Best of Miles, Vol. 1’ released by the Asha
Audio Co. of Calcutta, and became very popular in both Bangladesh and West Bengal, India.
77
“Just as Santana cannot leave a concert without performing ‘Black Magic Woman,’ we
cannot conclude a concert without performing Phiriye Dao. We had planned to release the
Hindi versions of our songs. The offer should have come to us,” said Hamin. The violation of
intellectual property (IP) rights in the song hurt the business interests of Miles, and, by
extension, of Bangladesh.
Seeking redress
The band members contacted lawyers well versed in international IP matters and the Ministry
of Commerce. Ministry officials contacted their counterparts in India, who suggested that
Miles should seek redress by taking the violators of copyright to court. The main provisions
on the international protection of copyright and related rights, the band learned, are contained
in the Berne and Rome Conventions and in articles 11 and 14 of the WTO Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Miles decided to go to court.
A Calcutta law firm filed a writ petition on behalf of Miles in the Calcutta High Court on 17
May 2004 against the producer, Mahesh Bhat, and the music director, Anu Malik, of the film
Murder, the singer of the song, Amir Jamal, the recording firm Saregama (India) Ltd and the
audio company RPG Global Music (London). It was claimed that the defendants had
collaborated on copying core elements from Phiriye Dao Amar Prem in the soundtrack Jana
Jane Jana of the movie Murder. It was further claimed that the themes of the two songs were
similar and their melodies identical. Even the use of chords was the same in both the songs.
“This is gross infringement of the international (intellectual) property rights as well as the
Copyright Act,” stated Pratap Chatterjee, the lawyer for the petitioners (Telegraph, Calcutta,
20 May 2004).
As compensation for the injury caused to the business interests of the petitioners, they
demanded 50 million rupees from Anu Malik, Mahesh Bhat, Saregama India Ltd and RPG
78
Global Music; plus total reimbursement for the expenditure incurred in filing the case. A
court order was also sought for appointing a receiver or special officer to seize the entire lot
of soundtrack software from Saregama’s DumDum studio. Besides this, the band’s lawyers
demanded that the respondents “should be directed to disclose upon oath details of cassettes
and CDs distributed by them to various vendors and retails.”
The verdict
On hearing the petition, the Hon. Justice S. K. Mukherjee took prima facie cognizance of the
matter and passed an interim order on 19 May 2004. In his learned judgment, the justice
ordered the respondents to remove the song from the soundtrack of the movie Murder. The
court order further barred the respondents from manufacturing, selling, distributing or
marketing any music cassette or disc containing the song.
Pursuing their IP rights in court involved costs and challenges for the copyright owners in
Bangladesh, including money, time, lack of information and uncertainty about the outcome.
When this article was written, the band had won only the first round of the battle, and had yet
to secure a verdict on the nature and amount of monetary compensation for the damage
caused to their business prospects. Nevertheless, the band members were very happy with the
decision of the court. “We were impressed by the promptness with which the first hearing in
the Calcutta High Court was completed and the injunction order was passed. We proceeded
systematically, organizing everything very carefully. We submitted the technical notations of
our song and that of the “copied” song,” said the band members (Prothom Alo, 26 May
2004).
The verdict was a triumph of international IP rights treaties, which enable the nationals of one
country to defend their rights across national boundaries. The case upholds the fact that IP
rights, like other property rights, are inviolable. It simultaneously serves as a warning to
would-be violators of IP rights, and as an encouragement to creative people all over the world
by reassuring them that their creative works can be defended against piracy.
Going the Distance
Miles have come a long way. They started out in 1979, playing western hard rock cover
versions in hotels around Dhaka, and for twelve years performed only in English. But Bangla
79
pop was rapidly gaining in popularity across Bangladesh. “As a top band, the pressure started
mounting on us - from the press, fans, audio companies - to do Bangla pop songs,” explained
lead guitarist and vocalist, Hamin Ahmed, in an interview for India-today.com. “We knew
that we would reach out to a much larger audience once we did songs in Bangla. We decided
to do it in a slightly different way and introduced Bangla rock-fusion in our first Bangla
album, Pratisrutti (1991).” The album was an instant success. The band followed it up with
another hit. Prottasha (1993) sold around 300,000 copies within a few months of its release,
and is still a bestselling band album in Bangladesh.
The band has created its own style of music which includes elements of pop, blues, Latino,
jazz and techno. “The pop/rock scene in Bangladesh is fantastic,” Hamin enthuses. “And the
best part is that the audience is mature enough to understand and appreciate each and every
instrument played and the intricate vocal works of a good singer. There are 50 to 60 bands in
the country, including six or seven very good ones with a huge fan following. So, things are
looking up and looking great.”
And why the name? “Miles represents distance,” explained Hamin. “At the time of naming
the band, we knew that our journey through music is going to be a distance that will never
end. So, miles and miles of music. You never stop learning, creating and never, ever, stop
moving.”
Results of Questionnaire Survey

I interviewed 22 persons (Annex F) on random basis including copyright expert through a
simple purposive questionnaire. The respondents includes various professionals, conscious
and advanced group of people of the society like poet, writer, scientist, filmmaker-producer,
advocate, police officer, folklorist, agency heads (Bangla Academy, Bangladesh Shilpakala
Academy, Bangladesh Film Development Corporation, Bangladesh Television, Copyright
Office etc.), NGO worker, women representatives, government high officials like Additional
and Joint Secretary, social activist and worker, painter, ethnic people, diplomat, armed forces
representatives (Army, Navy, Air force), singer-lyricist-composer, theater worker-director
and performer, university professor, student, 4 major religious representatives for different
perceptions and so on. The results of the face-to-face interview can be seen below:
80
1. Are you aware about the Copyright Act 2000 enacted by the government?
Yes No Don’t know
17 2 3
2. Is the Copyright act adequate to protect the right of the people?
Yes No Don’t know
9 8 5
3. Is the Copyright act responsive to the need and / or aspirations of the targeted clients?
Yes No Don’t know
11 6 5
4. Do you think a modification is needed to make the existing rules/laws more effective in
protecting stakeholders’ interest?
Yes No Don’t know
9 5 8
5. Have you heard about the piracy of writing, computer program etc.?
Yes No Don’t know
22 - -
6. Do you think government initiative is enough to protect the copyright of any creation or any
other intellectual property rights?
Yes No Don’t know
5 15 2
7. Do you think the nation is loser for the absence of copyright protection?
Yes No Don’t know
18 2 2
8. Do you think, as a subject copyright should be included in the text book of school/college for
creating awareness?
Yes No Don’t know
17 4 1
9. Do you think watching pirated movie; drama and using any content with no reference or due
acknowledgement is an offence?
Yes No Don’t know
19 3 -
10. Do you think effective enforcement is required to protect all sorts of intellectual property rights
in Bangladesh?
Yes No Don’t know
81
20 2 -
Total 147 47 26
Figure 2
Spreading of the responses out of total 120 different segments of 10 fixed questions
As the population is very small, sampling is not necessary. Simply it can be explained that
147 were answered as ‘yes’ from 22 respondents out of 10 fixed questions with 3 segments,
that is, they are largely aware of the copyright law what they think is adequate and
responsive, but they are in favor of further modification of it. They also think government
initiative is enough to protect copyright, but also need effective enforcement. This group of
respondents knows about piracy and considers watching pirated movie/drama as an offence.
They found our nation loser in absence of copyright application. Majority are in favor of the
inclusion of copyright as an academic matter in the text books.
47 were answered as ‘No’ from the same number of respondents and questions with 3
different segments. But nobody told that viewing pirated movie/drama and using any form of
contents without permission is not an offence. Only 4 people were not in favor of copyright
as an academic matter. Because comparing other needs, inclusion of copyright as a subject in
the text book doesn’t get priority. 26 were honestly answered as ‘don’t know’ to some of the
questions out of total 10 containing ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘don’t know’.
82
Having few inconsistencies and/ or little biases of the response-pattern and behavior it is
evident that there is nothing serious wrong in the law, problem lies in somewhere else.
Problem is our noncompliance, our ignorance-culture, lack of awareness and so on.
The main hypothesis of the research was the copyright policies are not sufficient to effectively
protect the interest of the stakeholders in practice which is partially correct. The insufficiency
in the policies or acts derives from the insufficient knowledge of both the clients and the law
enforcing agencies, and insufficient penalties for non-compliance with the policies, the
policies are unworkable due to the external constraints- this part of the hypothesis found
fully correct.
Besides close ended answers the respondents also replied to few open ended questions like i)
do you think a modification is needed to make the existing rules/laws more effective in
protecting stakeholders’ interest? If yes, what modifications you suggest? ii) do you think
government initiative is enough to protect the copyright of any creation or any other
intellectual property rights? If not, who should come forward and how? iii) do you think the
nation is loser for the absence of copyright protection? If yes, how we are loser? iv) as a
creative person what is your overall comments in this regard?
But no question was raised about any perspective or policy making perspective as it was
found difficult for the respondents with few exceptions.
The respondents’ elaborate answers can be seen in Annex G.
83
4.2 Trademark
A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design, or expression which

identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others, although
trademarks used to identify services are usually called service marks. The trademark owner
can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located
on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity,
trademarks are often displayed on company buildings.
84
Flowchart
Flowchart of Procedure
of Procedure for Registration
for Registration of Trade
of Trademarks in Marks
Bangladesh
Application Filed
[Sec : 15]
Serial according to filing date

& time
[Sec: 15(2)]
Substantive Examination (First

come first service basis)
[TMR: 4]
If any objection Decision of the Assistant If accepted

Registrar
Show cause letter issued Decision of the Deputy

mentioning all sorts of objections If any objection raised Registrar
[TMR-12]
If accepted
Any cause Yes Hearing or put up

shown ? in note Journal Section: Serial a new
and process for publication
[Sec: 17]
No
No Accepted? Yes
Refusal
If fee received
Publication
[Sec: 17]
If no opposition
Opposition & Appeal
If any opposition within 2 months within 2 months
Section: Hearing or Note
Put up
If Accepted
[Sec: 18] Registration Section : Serial &
process for registration
Show cause before [Sec: 20]
abandonment
[TMR-8]
If fee received
Any cause Yes Issuance of Registration

shown ? Certificate
No
Abandoned Not Satisfied Satisfied

[TMR-9]
85
4.3 Patent and Design
Department of Patent, Design and Trademarks is responsible for all kinds of related activities
in Bangladesh. It accomplishes its charter of duties under the following laws and rules:
o Patent and Design Law- 1911

o Trademark Law- 2009
o Geographical Indication Act- 2013
o Patent and Design Rules- 1933
o Trademarks Rules- 1963
To make the department updated and to bring dynamism in it, new draft of Patent Law- 2014
and Design Law- 2014 has been formulated. While working on these I found that the draft of
Patent Law- 2014 was waiting for vetting in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs. An inter-ministerial meeting was held on the new draft of Design Law- 2014. Under
this new law provisions have been created to provide certificate of trademarks, service marks
and collective marks. Simultaneously Trademark Rules- 2015 was enacted for the smooth
running of Trademark Law- 2009 (amended in 2015). Geographical Indication Rules- 2015
was also enacted for proper implementation of GI Law- 2013.
Any person whether national or foreigner claiming to be the proprietor of a new or original
industrial design may apply to the Registrar of the Department for the registration of the
design in Bangladesh with the following documents. In case of foreign application, the
application will be submitted through local agent.
(A) Application: An application for the registration of industrial design should be made in the
prescribed form either 15 or 16 or 17. If the design is to be applied to any single article, the
application should be made on form -15, but if it is intended to be applied to a number of
86
articles of the same general character, comprising a set, it should be made on form-17, if it is
intended to claim priority the application should be made on form-16. If the applicant claims
the right of priority of an earlier application filed in another country which is a party to Paris
convention he/she is required to file his/her application within a period of six months from
the date of the first application and to append to his application a written declaration to the
effect that the claim of priority, indicating certain details regarding the earlier application,
and to furnish a certified copy of the earlier application.
(B) Representation: Application on prescribed form shall be accompanied by exactly similar

four copies of representation of the article clearly showing the features of the design by
different views and stating names of the views. The representation may contain drawing or
photographs or specimens of the design where applicable.
(C) Power of Attorney: If the applicant does not want to file his/her application in person,
then he/she will have to submit Power of Attorney.
(D) Requisite fee: The fee payable for any class is shown in the fee schedule. The fee may be
paid by way of pay order / cheque in favor of Registrar, DPDT.
(E) Statement of Novelty: The applicant should endorse on the application and each of the
representations a brief statement of novelty for which he/she seeks protection. This may be
done when he / she files the application or at any time before registration is finally
effectuated.
(F) Endorsement of disclaimers: Statement of novelty will contain a disclaimer to the effect
that no right is claimed over the use of Trademarks, any mechanism, letters, words, numbers
etc.
(G) Duration of Registration of Design: The registration of industrial design is valid for 5
years from the date of application. The period may be extended by two further periods each
of 5 years on application before the expiry of the copyright.
87
(H) Classification of Goods: For purpose of registration of industrial design, goods to which
the design is to be applied are divided into fourteen classes.
Total number of applications for patent, design and trademarks registration in last 3 years can
be seen below:
Comparative statement of foreign and local applications for patent, design and trademarks in
last 3 years:
We see the trend that total number of application for design registration has been increased
gradually. It indicates that our commercial activities have been increased and there is also a
design booming in Bangladesh. Foreign applications number is higher than the local
application’s number for patent design registration. Bangladesh has not that much scientific
movement and innovations, mostly these are foreign initiatives. On the other hand local
number of applications is higher than the foreign application’s number for trademark
registration. Increase in trademark registration is also indicating vibrant trade and commerce
of the country.
88
Information on Registration Certificates
After consideration of all applications of registration for patent, design and trademarks, the
authority publishes gazette / journals serially. Provided that no case is filed against it, or case
filed but authority considers the original application as usual for any other reason. Certificate
is to be completed after submission of the registration fees. Total number of certificates given
for patent, design and trademarks in last 3 years can be seen below:
Information on revenue income of the department
All fees are realized for patent, design and trademarks as per the schedule of patent design
and trademarks rules. After realization all fees go to the public exchequer. A comparative
statement of revenue earned in last 3 years is shown below (in Taka):
Cases of opposition, mark cancellation / corrections and statistics of appeal cases in the year
2014-15 are shown as per the proforma below:
89
Cases Spillover Current Total cases Current Pending

from last year’s case year’s case cases
year filed settled
Opposition 428 68 496 231 265
cases
Correction/ 22 15 37 08 29
cancellation
cases
Appeal cases 182 25 207 01 206
Among 496 total opposition cases, 231 were settled and 265 were pending. 08
correction/cancellation cases were settled out of 37 (pending 29) and only one appeal case
was settled out of 207 cases where 206 were pending. As the most complicated task, appeal
cases remained as headache for the concerned department. Hopefully all pending cases would
be settled up smoothly when all related rules and regulations were enacted as the follow-up
actions of main laws/acts already in action.
An enormous deprivation in the Bengalese’s history for not final patent on time
Actually patent is a critical process, it is a negative right, that’s why there were huge debates
in the history since a long time.
Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose invented the Mercury Coherer (together with the telephone
receiver) used by Guglielmo Marconi to receive the radio signal in his first transatlantic radio
communication over a distance of 2000 miles from Poldhu, UK to Newfoundland, St. Johns
in December 1901. Guglielmo Marconi was celebrated worldwide for this achievement, but
the fact that the receiver was invented by Bose was totally concealed.
In 1895, Sir J. C. Bose gave his first public demonstration of electromagnetic waves, using
them to ring a bell remotely and to explode some gunpowder. He sent an electromagnetic
wave across 75 feet passing through walls and body of the Chairman, Lieutenant Governor of
Bengal.
90
Sir J. C. Bose holds the first patent worldwide to invent a solid-state diode detector to detect
EM waves. The detector was built using a galena crystal.
He was a pioneer in the field of microwave devices. His contribution remains distinguished in
the field and was acknowledged by the likes of Lord Kelvin, Lord Rayleigh,86 etc.
In the year 1998, Dr. Probir K. Bondyopadhyay found out that it was actually Sir J. C. Bose
who invented Marconi's Italian Navy Auto coherer. He explained the sequence of events in
great detail in his paper, "Sir J. C. Bose's Diode Detector Received Marconi's First
Transatlantic Wireless Signal of December 1901 (The "Italian Navy Coherer" Scandal
Revisited)." [3, Proc. IEEE, Vol. 86, No. 1, January 1998.]
The article goes into technical details and background to enable a person with no knowledge
of history of radio communication to understand the contribution of Sir J. C. Bose clearly.
(Citation: V. Aggarwal, "Jagadish Chandra Bose: The Real Inventor of Marconi’s

Wireless Detector", The Ancient Wireless Association Journal, July 2006, Vol. 47/#3, pp.
50-54)
What happened in Patenting Medicines?
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has decided to extend drug patent exemption for its
least-developed country (LDC) members until 2033 which was earlier 2016.
The decision was taken by the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS).
86
Darrel T. Emerson, “The Work of Jagadis Chandra Bose: 100 Years of Millimeter-Wave Research,” IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 45, No. 12, pp. 2267-2273, Dec. 1997
91
The Council’s decision extends until January 2033 the period during which key provisions of
the WTO’s intellectual property agreement, the TRIPS Agreement, do not apply to
pharmaceutical products in LDCs.
This means LDCs can choose whether or not to protect pharmaceutical patents and clinical
trial data before 2033. The decision also keeps open the option for further extensions beyond
that date.
The latest extension, the second specifically applied to pharmaceutical products for LDCs, is
in line with directions set by WTO ministers in the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health.
It also follows the adoption of the new UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which
affirm the right of developing countries to utilize TRIPS Agreement flexibilities to ensure
access to medicines for all.
Ambassador Shameem Ahsan of Bangladesh, coordinator of the LDC group in the WTO,
described the decision as “historic,” adding that it “will assure the LDCs the necessary legal
certainty to procure or to produce generic medicines for those who need it most but do not
have any access.”
For this decision least-developed country (LDC) members of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) will be allowed to maintain their existing rights over patenting pharmaceutical
products used in their territories until at least 2033.
This means that these poor countries (as recognized by the World Bank) can 'choose whether
or not to protect pharmaceutical patents and clinical trial data before 2033', said a WTO note.
The decision also entails the WTO having the right to extend these rights in future, even
beyond 2033.
The aim of the decision is to enable poor countries to guarantee the supply of much needed
medicines, even generic versions of branded drugs that are patent-protected elsewhere in the
world.
92
WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo said the decision by the WTO TRIPS council
represents a “clear and unambiguous signal that WTO members are committed to addressing
the needs of the organization’s poorest members”.
There are currently 48 LDCs, with the overwhelming majority in Africa.
After two weeks of high level negotiations between the United States and the Group of Least
Developed Countries, the World Trade Organization committee on intellectual property
rights agreed to extend a waiver allowing LDCs to avoid applying and enforcing IP rights on
pharmaceutical products until 2033.
The Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) met in a fine
morning to reconvene the October session which was suspended after no agreement could be
found on the LDCs’ request for an unlimited extension of their pharmaceutical products
waiver (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 17 October 2015).
The TRIPS Council adopted the extension of the waiver on pharmaceutical products until 1
January 2033, taking up after the current extension which was running until 1 January 2016.
LDCs benefit from a parallel waiver on all products running until 2021.
Although general consensus on the request prevailed, the United States, according to sources,
disagreed on the timeframe of the extension and argued that TRIPS includes the possibility
for LDCs to ask for an extension whenever it is needed.
According to an LDC source, the agreement found on the extension is a better deal than the
previous extension dating back to 2002.
In particular, the last extension was for 14 years, this one is for 17 and if one could argue that
three years is a meager victory, the source said, three years can be very important for LDCs
having set up pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Also agreed are the request of LDCs to waive paragraph 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS.
Paragraph 70.8 requests that a member not applying patent protection for pharmaceutical
products still has to provide a means by which patent applications can be filed, and once
93
protection is made available, the protection should apply to those filed applications for the
remainder of the patent term.
The former extension did not include a waiver of Paragraph 70.8, but did cover Paragraph
70.9, according to the WTO. The LDC source said it was an improvement over the last
extension.
Paragraph 70.9 grants exclusive marketing rights for five years after obtaining marketing
approval or until a product patent is granted or rejected in a member territory, whichever
period is shorter.
The extension of the waiver under Article 66 (Least-Developed Country members) is under
the decision power of the TRIPS Council. On the waiver of Article 70.8 and 70.9, the TRIPS
Council provided a recommendation to the General Council to approve it.
According to a WTO source, the TRIPS Council decision is timely in view of the adoption by
the United Nations of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015. The
SDG targets on health directly refer to the right to use TRIPS flexibilities, in the spirit of the
Doha Declaration, to provide access to medicines for all. Today’s agreement can therefore
serve as a concrete step in working towards achieving the SDG health targets by 2030, he
told Intellectual Property Watch.
The informal agreement was reached on 29 October between US Ambassador Michael Punke
and representatives of the LDC Group, Ambassador Shameem Ahsan from Bangladesh and
Ambassador Christopher Onyanga Aparr from Uganda, according to sources (IPW,
WTO/TRIPS, 3 November 2015).
NGOs Urge LDCs to Take Advantage of Policy Space

In a collective statement, non-governmental organizations are calling LDCs to “actively use
the created policy space this renewed transition period provides and accordingly to take
immediate steps to amend their respective national laws to exclude pharmaceutical products
from patent protection and test data protection with explicit provisions that this would be
until 1 January 2033 or the expiry of such later transition period that may be granted by the
WTO Council for TRIPS.”
94
Discussions Ongoing On Non-Violation Complaints

The TRIPS Council was also suspended over the issue of non-violation complaints (NVCs)
on 15 October (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 15 October 2015). NVCs refer to situations were country
A can start a dispute with country B if country A feels that country B has taken an action
depriving A from expected trade benefits, even without having breached any WTO rules.
A moratorium, which has been extended from one WTO ministerial conference to the next,
shields IP issues from NVCs. The last WTO ministerial conference in December 2013 asked
the TRIPS Council to make a recommendation on the moratorium, and whether it should be
made permanent or not.
Most countries have supported a permanent moratorium but the United States and
Switzerland have opposed it.
European Commission Reaction on LDC Decision

The European Commission issued a statement on the LDC extension. It states: “EU
Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström said: ‘Even if this waiver is not quite as far-
reaching as we would have hoped, it is very good news that there is a consensus in favor of a
very long waiver period. This should provide the legal certainty and policy space needed by
the least developed countries to ensure better access to medicines.”
The European Union supported the initial proposal by least developed countries for a
permanent waiver for as long as they remained LDCs.
The WTO decision complements the Commission funded development programmes for
supply of essential medicines in developing countries and reinforces the coherence of the EU
approach on development policy. This is also good news in the run up to the WTO
Ministerial Conference in Nairobi. Some hopes this will be the first of a series of decisions
that will be taken there in favor of LDCs.
With the approaching deadline, LDC members of the WTO requested a further extension of
the provision so long as those countries remained least developed nations.
95
A TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Council meeting in

Geneva in 2016 agreed, and decided to allow “maximum flexibility” in their approach to
patenting pharmaceutical products until “at least January 2033”.
The decision also keeps open the option for further extensions beyond that date. It was hailed
“unanimously”, WTO says in announcing meeting outcomes.
Industries say the exemption helps countries like Bangladesh to make expensive brands
available in their markets in cheaper prices as they do not need to bother about patents.
Bangladesh’s Tk 12 billion drug market is dominated by local manufacturers and many of

them export their produce, using the LDC privilege.
Partners in Population and Development’s (PPD) Executive Director Joe Thomas welcomed
the decision.
He told bdnews24.com it would have “significant implications” for PPD (Partners in

Population and Development) member countries.
PPD, headquartered in Dhaka, promotes collaboration among poor developing nations. More
than half of the world population lives in its 26 member states, many of them in extreme
poverty.
Health care cost drives millions of them from poverty to extreme poverty.
“Access to generic medicines is essential for the long-term stability of health systems in
many PPD member countries,” Thomas said.
“Neither patients nor governments can afford expensive brand-name drugs in many LDCs,
which are home to over 10 million of the world’s HIV/AIDS patients”.
He said the request for the patent waiver was “fair and just”. He also said this would
“essentially” contribute to reducing inequality within and between countries, the 10th of the
new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
96
SDG Goal 3 of ensuring good health and promoting well-being for all of all ages includes the
target of providing “access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines”.
Tension between Patent Regime and the Right to Health Fundamental rights are playing a key
role to protect the public interest in different segments of society. In addition to fundamental
rights other rights must be highly respected including exploitation and enforcement of
intellectual property rights. The TRIPS provisions on patenting and marketing process of
pharmaceutical drugs introduce a conflict between pharmaceutical industry and the objective
of ensuring sound public health issues relating to HIV/AID and other epidemic diseases.
Is the decision finally beneficial to LDCs?

I visited Incepta Pharmaceuticals (number 2 medicine exporter of Bangladesh, 1 is the Square
Pharmaceuticals Limited) on 14 June 2016 and interviewed few officials. They informed that
they have taken the opportunity of WTO’s exemption. As their medicines are not original
innovations they did not go for patents. I wanted to know again if unfair competition started,
i.e., copy or piracy occurred then who will protect as these are not patented. We have our
own trace and track system which is still protecting our products, they answered. But
question arises, will this sort of exemption by WTO finally make the nations of LDCs legged
behind?
97
4.4 Geographical Indication
What is a geographical indication?

A geographical indication is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and
possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of
origin. Most commonly, a geographical indication includes the name of the place of origin of
the goods. Agricultural products typically have qualities that derive from their place of
production and are influenced by specific local factors, such as climate and soil. Whether a
sign is recognized as a geographical indication is a matter of national law. Geographical
indications may be used for a wide variety of products, whether natural, agricultural or
manufactured.
An appellation of origin is a special kind of geographical indication. It generally consists of

a geographical name or a traditional designation used on products which have a specific
quality or characteristics that are essentially due to the geographical environment in which
they are produced. The concept of a geographical indication encompasses appellations of
origin.
Can geographical indications only be used for agricultural products?

The use of geographical indications is not limited to agricultural products. They may also
highlight qualities of a product which are due to human factors associated with the place of
origin of the products, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. That place of
origin may be a village or town, a region or a country. For example, “Bohemia” is recognized
as a geographical indication in many countries for specific products made in the Czech
Republic, in particular crystal ware.
98
What does a geographical indication do?

A geographical indication points to a specific place, or region of production, that determines
the characteristic qualities of the product which originates from that place. It is important that
the product derives its qualities and reputation from that place. Since those qualities depend
on the place of production, a specific "link" exists between the products and their original
place of production.
Why do geographical indications need protection?

Geographical indications are understood by consumers to denote the origin and the quality of
products. Many of them have acquired valuable reputations which, if not adequately
protected, may be misrepresented by dishonest commercial operators. False use of
geographical indications by unauthorized parties is detrimental to consumers and legitimate
producers. Consumers are deceived into believing that they are buying a genuine product
with specific qualities and characteristics, when they are in fact getting an imitation.
Legitimate producers are deprived of valuable business and the established reputation of their
products is damaged.
Difference between a geographical indication and a trademark

A trademark is a sign used by an enterprise to distinguish its goods and services from those of
other enterprises. It gives its owner the right to exclude others from using the trademark. A
trademark will often consist of a fanciful or arbitrary name or device. A geographical
indication tells consumers that a product is produced in a certain place and has certain
characteristics that are due to that place of production (for instance: Basmati rice of India or
Pakistan). It may be used by all producers who make their products in the place designated by
a geographical indication and whose products share specified qualities. Unlike a trademark,
the name used as a geographical indication will usually be predetermined by the name of the
place of production.
How are geographical indications protected?

Geographical indications are protected in accordance with international treaties and national
laws under a wide range of concepts, including –
 special laws for the protection of geographical indications or appellations of origin
99
 trademark laws in the form of collective marks or certification marks

 laws against unfair competition
 consumer protection laws, or
 specific laws or decrees that recognize individual geographical indications.
In essence, unauthorized parties may not use a geographical indication in respect of products
that do not originate in the place designated by that indication. Applicable sanctions range
from court injunctions preventing the unauthorized use to the payment of damages and fines
or, in serious cases, imprisonment.
Geographical indications protection on the international level

A number of treaties administered by WIPO provide for the protection of geographical
indications, most notably the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of
1883, and the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Their
International Registration. In addition, Articles 22 to 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) deal with the international protection of
geographical indications within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
What is a ‘generic’ geographical indication?

If a geographical term is used as the common designation of a kind of product, rather than an
indication of the place of origin of that product, then the term no longer functions as a
geographical indication. Where this has occurred in a certain country, then that country may
refuse to recognize or protect that term as a geographical indication. For example, the term
‘cologne’ now denotes a certain kind of perfumed toilet water, regardless of whether or not it
was produced in the region of Cologne.
Very recent Bangladesh government has identified 35 GI products to be registered as our

original products (Annex H).
WIPO's role in the protection of geographical indications

WIPO is in charge of the administration of a number of international agreements which deal
partly or entirely with the protection of geographical indications (see, in particular, the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the Lisbon Agreement for the
100
Protection of Appellations of Origin and Their International Registration). Furthermore,

through the work of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs
and Geographical Indications (SCT), made up of representatives of Member States and
interested organizations, WIPO explores new ways of enhancing the international protection
of geographical indications.
Jamdani: A matter of debate, huge discussions regionally and nationally
300 B.C Indian economist Kautilya (Chanakya) cited about Maslin of Dhaka and Jamdani
sharee in his book Arthashastra. 14 century’s famous Muslim traveler Ibn Battuta also
included Jamdani of Sonargaon as the content of his writings. But unfortunately these
creative goods are recognized as the Indian commodities. Our NakshiKantha has also been
registered as the Indian origin by the WIPO. Three varieties of the mango of
ChapaiNawabganj Fazli, Himsagor and Lakkhanbhog are going to be registered as Indian
fruits too. Because Bangladesh did not take initiative on time.
CPD and National Crafts Council of Bangladesh (NCCB) jointly organized dialogue on
“Protecting Geographical Indication Products in the Context of Bangladesh and the Way
Forward” at the CIRDAP auditorium on Tuesday 17 June 2014
It says the existing act lacks provisions to protect rights of Bangladeshi GI products.
The government should formulate proper rules immediately to make the Geographical
Indicative Products (registration and protection) Act functional, so that the law can establish
the rights of products like Jamdani.
101
It was also claimed that the existing act – which was passed in the parliament in 2013 –
lacked adequate provision to protect the rights of the country’s geographical indicative (GI)
products.
According to the existing act, GI is a sign which defines the source and contains the goodwill
of a product that originated in a particular area, like Hilsa from Padma River, Chamcham
from Tangail and Kanchagolla from Natore.
Registering a particular product like Jamdani with GI sign would benefit producers by giving
them more financial and business opportunities due to its goodwill, said CPD Distinguished
Fellow Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya.
“The country has already lost its famous products like Jamdani, Nakshi Kantha and Fazli
mango because of not having the act in due time which could have identified and registered
the GI products,” said Shukla Sarwat Siraj, a supreme court lawyer who works on Intellectual
Property rights.
Regarding the GI products that India has already registered as their own, she said Bangladesh
could also register those products because of their origin and market those with GI sign.
According to India’s Geographical Indications Registry, Nakshi Kantha was registered as a

GI product of the country in 2008, and Fazli Mango and Jamdani Sharee in 2009.
The registry mentions Jamdani Saree as “Uppada Jamdani Sharee” – a handicraft item
produced in its Andhra Pradesh state, Nakshi Kantha produced in West Bengal and Fazli
mango grown in the Malda district of West Bengal state.
Referring to a report published in the Dhaka Tribune in November 2013, Shukla said a
comment by the then registrar of the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, which
claimed that the government planned to register Jamdani sharee as Dhakai Jamdani, was
ridiculous.
Other speakers at the programme also echoed Shukla, demanding that Jamdani be registered
under its original name, as the origin of the fabric was historically in Dhaka.
102
Shukla also claimed that only after registering products like Jamdani, Nakshi Kantha and
Fazli mango as Bangladeshi GI products, the country could approach the World Trade
Organization for gaining the intellectual property rights of those products.
Earlier, Bangladesh formulated an ordinance named Geographical Indications of Goods

(registration and protection) Ordinance 2008, which identified 66 products as the country’s
GI products.
Of them, three were fisheries, eight vegetables, 14 agricultural products, 48 food items and 18
other products including Jamdani Saree, Fazli mango and Nakshi Kantha.
The government has formulated the GI act in line with the agreement made between
Bangladesh and the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on
January 1, 1995 (Abu Bakar Siddique (Dhaka Tribune, 18 June 2014).
“We are still lagging behind other countries, including India, to claim our ownership of any
traditional item. The government should take necessary initiatives shortly to protect our
cultural and historically important items,” said Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)
Distinguished Fellow Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya.
He also said like some other traditional items Jamdani is solely a Bangladeshi item and it is
not a generic one.
Barrister Sarwat Siraj Shukla said there is no visible sign to formulate necessary regulations
to enact the GI Law 2013, though it is much needed to claim patent rights of any traditional
item.
“India had already applied for the ownership of Jamdani although it is a Bangladeshi item.
We are ready to fight it legally, if needed, to protect our items.”
She said ensuring ownership of traditional items is very needed in the era of globalization.
Dr Iftekhar Iqbal, associate professor of Dhaka University, mentioned in his presentation that
considering all historical, geographical, commercial and cultural contexts of Jamdani, Dhaka
was and still is its only true centre of production.
103
“Jamdani has to be a unique name, whose geographical location indicator must be Dhaka, but
not Dhakai Jamdani. In other words, Dhaka and Jamdani are synonymous. So, India’s
registration of Jamdani under its GI law is illegal and a violation of existing TRIPS (Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) regulation.”
He mentioned that India registered Jamdani as ‘Uppada Jamdani Sharees’ from Andhra
Pradesh in 2009. However, research suggests that there is no combination of geographical,
ecological, historical or commercial conditions elsewhere in the world for Jamdani, except
Dhaka.
GI is a name or sign used on certain products to certify that they possess certain qualities, as
they are made according to traditional methods or enjoy a certain reputation due to their
geographical origins.
According to the GI law, the real producer of any particular goods in an area will get the
absolute rights of the registered products.
If jamdani sari is registered locally under the law, no other country will export any clothing
item with the name jamdani to Bangladesh.
The law will also ensure the patent rights of various area-specific products, such as –
kachagolla of Natore, roshmalai of Comilla, chomchom of Porabari in Tangail, monda of
Muktagachha in Mymensingh, tea from Sylhet, and honey from the Sundarbans.
Dhaka University professor Dr Masuda M Rashid Chowdhury, rights activist Hamida

Hossain, NCCB president Monira Emdad and Secretary Shahid Hossain Shamim, and
designer Bibi Rasel also spoke the same at the dialogue.
(Bangladesh Jamdani ownership hijack attempt draws flak, Experts liken Indian claim to
patent rule violation, The Financial Express, 18 June 2014)
In 2014 the geographical indicative (GI) products could not be registered under the law in
absence of the rules. GI is a name or sign used on certain products to certify that they possess
certain qualities because they are made as per traditional methods or enjoy a certain
reputation due to their geographical origin.
104
As a result, the country was losing the patent rights of some traditional products, such as
jamdani sari and nakshi kantha, especially to India.
Goods protected by the law will enable the real producers to get higher prices due to their
supreme quality, said Debapriya Bhattacharya, the fellow of Centre for Policy Dialogue.
In 2009, India registered the Bangladeshi jamdani as Uppada jamdani saris due to an absence
of the law in the country, said Iftekhar Iqbal, an associate professor at the history department
of Dhaka University.
Iqbal, who conducted a study on jamdanis, said the ecological context of the production of
cotton and finished jamdani products are unique in the Dhaka region.
The jamdani is a part of the national culture and heritage of Bangladesh and such a long-term
cultural and historic continuity of jamdanis is unmatched elsewhere in the world, he said.
“Hence, India’s registration of the Uppada jamdani under its GI law is illegal and a violation
of existing regulation of TRIPS [Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights],”
Iqbal said.
The study was a result of a qualitative and quantitative research between September and
December 2013.
A number of primary and secondary sources, including official publications, creative

literature, and research works from pre-modern and modern times, have been consulted.
Bangladesh is lagging behind in protecting its traditional products, as India passed the GI law
around 14 years ago, said Shukla Sarwat Siraj, an advocate of the Supreme Court.
Bhattacharya of the CPD said the study, guided by an advisory group of experts, will help the
country prove exclusive ownership of the jamdani internationally and regain Bangladesh’s
claim to India.
Compared to 1,600 jamdani weavers in the year 2000, their number rose to around 15,000 in
2013, according to the study.
105
It is estimated that about 2,000 jamdani saris are produced a week in the Dhaka region, at a
price range of Tk 5,000 to Tk 150,000.
The total export of jamdani saris, including to India, jumped from $4.84 million in fiscal
2008-09 to $10.41 million in 2010-11, the study said.
As per the law, the industries ministry opened a geographical indication wing under the
Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, with the chief of the wing being the
registrar of geographical indications for goods.
To register a product, the association or co-operative of the product will have to apply; no
individual can register a product.
(Implement GI law soon to protect indigenous products, The Daily Star, 18 June 2014)
‘We need the rules and regulations as soon as possible. According to the international
practice if we want to claim that some other countries have enlisted our product by their
name, we need to enlist that product in our own country (Debapriya Bhattacharya)’.
He added Jamdani, a unique Bangladeshi handloom product, is an asset of the country which
bears Bengali tradition and heritage.
‘After we enlist Jamdani in our own country, we would see what kind of legal measures can
be taken to retrieve its patent,’ he said.
He also said that some of the Bangladeshi products were patented by other countries and to
retrieve those, Jamdani would be the starting point.
Dhaka University history teacher Iftekhar Iqbal in his presentation said that India’s patent on
Jamdani in the name of Uppada Jamdani is illegal as it is purely a creation from Bangladesh.
The Dhaka belt was historically the Jamdani zone which extends from Sonargaon to Dhamrai
and Narsingdi, he said.
He said the quality of water of the region, basically of the river Shitalakhya, is a major
component that ensures the quality control of Jamdani.
106
The cleansing of cotton thread in the water of Shitalakhya brings a glaze in the finished
product, he said.
He also said the local ecology inspired most of the Jamdani designs.
‘Jamdani cannot be termed as Dhakai Jamndani like Uppada Jamdnai as Jamdani is a unique
name which only indicates one geographic location which is Dhaka,’ he said.
Lawyer Sukla Sarwat Siraj said that the newly introduced GI law in Bangladesh has
loopholes as it focuses only on punishment.
‘But the law failed to address the country’s interest in international bargaining platform,’ she
said.
Bangladesh Foreign Trade Institute senior fellow Mohammad Abu Yusuf said that it was
crucial to determine who would get the patent right.
‘We need to determine who will get the patent rights of Jamdani. There are parties like the
government or the traders or the association to demand the patent rights,’ he said.
CPD Trustee Khushi Kabir said that the government was wasting time to formulating the
regulations.
‘This is a common practice but this time we need to do it fast. We should not consider
whether or not we will be able to retrieve the patent right of Jamdani but we must try as it is
the right thing to do,’ she said.
(Government spurred to formulate GI Act regulations immediately, New Age)
Speakers at a dialogue here stressed the need for proper implementation of the Geographical
Indicative Products (Registration and Protection) Act, 2013 to safeguard the patent rights of
the country’s centuries-old indigenous products.
They said traditionally jamdani sharee is a product of Bangladesh but some countries,
especially India, has been trying to get its international patent right under the name of
“Uppada Jamdani”.
107
They suggested the government to go for a legal battle to establish Bangladesh’s patent right
of jamdani.
They said ownership of Geographical Indicative (GI) Products is an important part of world
trade. Jamdani sharee is a product of Bangladesh but India got its international patent right in
2009 as ‘Uppada Jamdani Sharee’ identifying it as a product of Andhra Pradesh, India, they
alleged.
Presenting historical evidence about the origin of jamdani sharee, Dr. Iftekhar Iqbal said only
Bangladesh has the raw materials, environment and efficiency for making jamdani sharee.
So, none but Bangladesh has the legal right to get its international patent right, he added.
He urged the government to implement the Geographical Indicative Products (Registration

and Protection) Act, 2013 to protect the country’s claims to commodities such as jamdani
sharee, nakshi kantha and hilsha fish.
(Published on BSS Online, Patent rights of indigenous products stressed)
But there is still hope that Bangladesh Rice Research Institute applied to the DPDT for
recognition of scented rice Kalojira and Kataribhog. BRRI and Department of Fisheries also
completed their reparation for the recognition process of 18 more varieties of rice and Hilsha
fish respectively as the Bangladeshi commodities. All concerned departments are in the
process of gazette publication of GI registration, especially for Jamdani sharee, Kalojira and
Kataribhog rice. Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute (BARI) is also coming forward
for registration of 200 local varieties of fruits and vegetables as Bangladeshi GI goods.
(Daily Prothom Alo, 17 April 2016)
On 1st July 2016 I interviewed Jamdani Tati Mr. Ismail who is the proprietor of M/S Ismail
Jamdani Weaving Factory of Rupganj, Narayanganj. He informed me that one day Jamdani
will also be extinct like our Maslin of ancient time. British slashed the artistic hands of
Maslin maker but we are cutting hands by ourselves. I inherited this profession from my
father-grandfather, but I don’t want to be continued the same by my successor. Because it is a
matter of long process to learn Jamdani weaving, at least it takes 2 years. In this interim time
what he or she will do? Some people think it as inferior job. That’s why government should
give subsidy or provide monitory incentives to the probationary Jamdani makers if we want
108
to allow the Jamdani industry alive. Then why you are not going to the Patent, Design and
Trademark Registrar or to the Ministry of Jute and textile – I asked him and got the answer
as: we don’t know them, we don’t know the office and process. To the question regarding GI
registration and Indian ownership on it, he replied that as a propagator of Jamdani I will be
happy if government can register (GI) Jamdani as ‘Dhakai Jamdani’. Because it reflects the
name of original labor room of the Jamdani sharee.
Finally the debate was over. Because as our original product it received Geographical
Indication in 2016 by its long lasting familiar name ‘Jamdani’.
Hilsha Fish with Gossip and Funs
Hilsha also received GI from the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in 2017.
With this recognition, hilsha, national fish of Bangladesh, would be registered
internationally as a fish of Bangladesh.
The Registrar of Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (DPDT) said they
completed all procedures to register hilsha as a GI product of Bangladesh. They would
soon hand over the GI certificate to the Department of Fisheries.
He added that as per rules, the Department of Fisheries had asked the DPDT for
registering hilsha as a GI product of Bangladesh.
After maintaining all the procedures, the government published a journal on hilsha and
uploaded it on a website. According to the rules, if any country does not raise any
109
objections within two months of publishing the journal, then the product will get the
recognition of GI.
The DPDT published the journal on June 1, and the deadline for getting objection ended
on July 31.
When the Department of Fisheries would get the certificate from the DPDT, they will
request all the countries that import hilsha to register the fish as the product of
Bangladesh.
At the end of the year 2017 the DPDT was supposed to publish a list of Bangladeshi GI
products, mentioning that hilsha as the second GI product of the country.
According to the report of World Fish, an international research organization, Bangladesh

alone produces over 60 percent of total hilsha production of the world. India, Myanmar
and some Middle Eastern countries, among others, produce hilsha. Though hilsha
production decreases in other countries, it is increasing in Bangladesh due to proper
conservation.
110
Rosogolla pride West Bengal's, but sweet-makers in Bangladesh disagree
The Daily Star Report, 15 November 2017
When we talk about sweets, nothing can beat the spongy, syrupy Rosogolla. Served on
almost every Bangladeshi occasion, the signature sweet has been an integral part of the
Bangalee culture for ages.
Steeped in a rich, delectable history, the sweetmeat is believed to have originated in southern
part of the country. However, its origins have been shrouded in mystery and the topic has
been hotly debated for years.
But now India's Geographical Indications (GI) Registry put the disagreements to bed as they
recently announced that the juicy sweet originated in West Bengal. The announcement ended
a two-and-a-half-year-old bitter dispute between Odisha and West Bengal over the origin of
the Rosogolla, Star’s Delhi correspondent reported.
"It has been settled under the GI Act that authenticates a product relating to either a
geographical location or community or society," said Deputy Controller of Patents and
Designs, Sanjay Bhattacharya.
The GI, under the World Trade Organization, is a sign that identifies a product as originating
from a particular place.
However, despite the declaration, there is strong disagreement over the issue as many
Bangladeshi sweet traders and consumers believe that the sweetmeat was created by
Bangladeshi sweet-makers.
111
In a report, BBC Bangla Service quoted the late veteran recipe writer and food connoisseur
Shawkat Osman who had said that although there is no written proof, but it is believed that
the Portuguese used to prepare cheese and sandesh (a particular kind of sweet) from milk in
sixth century.
The Bangalee wives would then prepare rosogolla or a form of it with those. He added,
"Kolkata's Nabin Chandra, who is presumed to be the maker of rosogolla, is a man from
Barisal and lived near Patuakhali."
It is believed that Chandra took his recipe with him to Kolkata, the BBC report said. Adding
to Chandra's legitimacy is a host of fabled admirers, including Rabindranath Tagore, who was
rumored to have known whether his rosogolla came from Chandra or elsewhere by taking just
one small bite.
After this GI announcement, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who was in
London, celebrated the news with a tweet saying: "Sweet news for us all. We are very happy
and proud that Bengal has been granted GI (Geographical Indication) status for Rosogolla."
West Bengal's Education Minister Partha Chattetjee said, "Odisha unnecessarily raised a
dispute over the issue."
Odisha's Science and Technology minister Pradip Kumar Panigrahi had told media earlier
that more than one committee set up to trace the origin of 'rosogolla' pointed to 'conclusive
evidence' that the sweet existed in the state for about 600 years.
On the other hand, the West Bengal government used 19-century history to claim rosogolla
was invented by Nabin Chandra Das, a famous sweetmeat maker, in 1868.
112
Himsagar has been added in the list
Himsagar is an extremely popular mango cultivar, originating from West Bengal in India and
Rajshahi /Chapai Nawabganj in Bangladesh. It is considered to be the most superior of all
mango cultivars in the world in terms of taste and aroma. It has a sweet aroma and is musky
sweet in taste. It is considered as the 'King of Mangoes'. The inside is yellow to orange in
colour and does not have any fibre87. The fruit is medium-sized and weighs between 250 and
350 grams, out of which the pulp content is around 77%. It has a good keeping quality88.
People have written thousands of poems and songs including Alkap of Chapai Nawabganj
about this much loved fruit.
Himsagar ripens in the month of May and it is available in the market from the second week
of May to the end of June. Except Chapai Nawabganj of Bangladesh it is mainly grown in the
districts of Nadia, North and South 24 Parganas and Hooghly in India. It is also cultivated in
Odisha and in Bihar where this variety is generally called Maldahi.
Chapai Nawabganj Regional Horticulture Research Centre informed that Himsagar (also
known as Khirshapat) is going to received GI registration very soon. It seems to be a matter
of joy for the local people and mango cultivators. Application for GI registration has been
submitted by the Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute on 2nd February 2018. The move
could be considered as a milestone in the commercial cultivation of this mango.
87
"Cottony soft to luscious and juicy - Bengal mangoes in Delhi". Samay Live. 18 June 2013. Retrieved 14 July
2013.
88
Parmar, Chiranjit. "Mango". Fruitpedia.com. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
113
Provided that the Khirshapat mango was described as Chapai Nawabgang origin mangos in
the district gazette (Amader Samoy, 12 February 2018). But it was not registered as our own
GI product even though it is an exportable item to the market of Europe and Middle East.
The core area of its cultivation is the district of Maldah in West Bengal. Himsagar is tagged
under the protected Geographical Indication index in India. It has a G.I. Registration No.
112.89
Other items to be registered as GI

In addition the DPDT is currently working on analyzing 24 more good including Fazli
mango, silk sari from Rajshahi and Harivanga mango from Rangpur, as GI products of
the country which might soon join the list.
Wild honey from the Sundarbans, for instance, is on the waitlist. According to reports from
the government, the collection of honey has been decreasing in the last few years. Last year,
honey collection gained around 890 quintals of honey, as opposed to the 1000-plus quintals
that the traditional honey hunters generally get each year.
The Black Bengal Goat, a breed which is found all over Bangladesh might also receive a GI
certification if things proceed as per plan. It's a kind of breed that works out well for the poor
since it does not require much food but has a high reproduction rate. They can eat almost
everything and their high-quality meat and skin is in good demand.
An application to the DPDT has also been filed for the famous Meherpur-based misti Sabitri.
According to owners of sweet shops in Meherpur, the sweet was first made there around 140
years ago and ever since then the legacy has continued.
Sylhet's very own Agar, a kind of perfume extracted from Agarwood trees might also receive
the GI status. According to the Bangladesh Agar and Ator Manufactures and Exporters
Association, the industry needs help from the government in order to complete with countries
like Malaysia and India who are far ahead where exports are concerned. Most of the Agar
products are exported to the Middle East.
(Naimul Karim, After Jamdani and Hilsa, Star Weekend, August 18, 2017)
89
"Himsagar Mango Malda" (PDF). Office of the Resident Commissioner, Government of West Bengal.
Retrieved 14 July 2013.
114
“The Bangladesh forest Research Institute boasts more than 100 innovations but apparently
none of them are patented. The same goes for the Bangladesh Forest Industries Development
Corporation that claims to have innovated over 50 technologies. Some of these innovations
are in bamboo cultivation through twig grafting, creating groves of golpata (Nipa palm) and
other trees in mangrove forests, tissue culture system, wood seasoning with solar power,
preserving electric wire poles using wood as railway slippers etc. Due to lack of awareness
and weak legal infrastructure on patenting in Bangladesh, patents of many innovative
technologies of ours have already been allotted to India…but this does not mean we cannot
regain the patents. American food grain company Ricetec patented two varieties of Basmati
rice of the Indian sub-continent and name them “Kasmati” and “Techsmati”. But the Indian
authorities acted quickly and, following an international arbitration, got back the patent right
of Basmati. The precedence is there. What we need now is to act, starting at the policy
level…besides those already mentioned; we have numerous other products to boast of. These
include different varieties of paddy, rice and jute, milk curd of Bogra, Tangail sarees,
kanchagolla (a sweetmeat) of Natore, khadi clothes of Comilla, honey from the Sundarbans,
tiler khaja (sweetmeat made of sesame seeds and sugar), gunny bags, earthen pitches,
shitalpati (mat made of fine cane strips), handloom clothes, shatranji (a type of indigenous
cotton carpet) of Rangpur, katan saree of Mirpur, indigenous musical instruments ektara and
dotara, folk songs like Bhaoyaiya and Bhatiyali etc”90.
It is time we took committed steps to protect the intellectual property rights of what is ours,
and, thereby, to make a mark in the world as nation of rich resources and innovation. And for
this, what we need is a synchronized and systematic effort from scientists, researchers and of
course, from the politicians and concerned government authorities.
90
Chowdhury, Ashoke, Intellectual Property Rights Protecting What is Ours, The Daily Star, 10 October
2017.
115
4.5 Miscellaneous
TRIPS Agreement and Bangladesh
So far as the Patents and Designs Act 1911 is concerned, “any manner of new manufacture
including an improvement thereof” is patentable. So the patentability criteria seem to be very
wide and flexible. More so, it could be argued that even a new plant variety could be
patented. However, the farmers are not able to patent their varieties, since their varieties have
been in the public domain and do not fulfill the criteria of “novelty” to get patented.
Nevertheless, bio-pirates collect local varieties, put them into bio-prospecting and develop
new varieties. Since the country is yet to formulate the provision on right to access to benefit
sharing and disclosure requirement in patenting such inventions, the country's indigenous
germplasm is in danger of misappropriation by the seed conglomerates.
Further, the Patents and Designs Act does not give the inventor of a design any right qua
design, rather it gives copyright on designs. Again, the Patents and Designs Act has no
provision for “petty patents” or “utility models” so as to encourage small inventions by the
SMEs or even by the individuals.
Additionally, the country has no legislation to protect trade-secrets except under the general
provisions of the Contract Act 1872 or the Competition Act 2012. The country also lacks
legislation to protect layout design of topographies and integrated circuits or to prevent unfair
competition.
As regards copyright protection, the Copyright Act 2000 seems to be archaic, for it does not
offer provisions to combat online copyright piracy. Further, this Act has not adopted the
principles of “prohibition of anti-circumvention” and “Digital Rights Management” (DRM)
of the WIPO Internet Treaties for taking technological measures to control access and copy of
copyrighted materials. Moreover, the Act has no provision for the protection of copyright in
database and prohibition of deep-linking, meta-tagging or p-2-p transmission of copyright
materials.
116
The copyright regime has also failed to delineate a minimum framework for the right to
equitable royalty of the stakeholders in the music industry. In addition, in the absence of
traditional cultural expression (TCE) law, our folk music remains unprotected.
As regards trademarks, the existing regime contained in the Trademarks Act 2009 seems to
be incapable of regulating trademark issues arising out of e-commerce. Further, the Act has
not elaborated the passing off action for unregistered trademarks. For this, businesses often
find infringement of brands – distinctive not being registered or descriptive incapable of
being registered but cannot successfully litigate the wrongdoers for passing off actions.
As regards GI, the definition of genericide in the GI Act 2013 seems to be very wide making
the Bangladeshi GIs vulnerable to genericide since a GI can easily become generic.
Moreover, the GI regime has made no provision for post-grant quality surveillance system.
With the development of the corpus juris of IPRs, cross-cutting IPRs issues like GI,
traditional knowledge (TK), e-commerce and telecommunications have developed. However,
the bifurcated IPRs management system, namely, the Department of Patents, Designs and
Trademarks (DPDT) and the Copyright Office suffers from lack of coordination and expertise
on cross cutting issues.
In addition, the Registrar of the DPDT is the only forum to dispose opposition disputes.
Again, an appeal may be preferred to the government against his decision. However, the
appellate authority may not have expertise on IPRs issues.
Furthermore, since Bangladesh has not signed and ratified the international treaties providing
international protection of IPRs like PCT for patent, Madrid system for trademarks, Lisbon
Agreements for GIs, the IPRs owners of the country will have to pay for respective foreign
country's registrations fees otherwise their goods will be susceptible in the foreign markets.
Having said the above, separate laws should be enacted for the protection of industrial
designs, utility models, PVP, cross-cutting IPRs, trade-secrets, preventing unfair competition,
and integrating IP offices, and necessary amendments need be made to the existing laws.
Despite the TRIPS' transition period until 2021 or 2033 for pharmaceuticals, the government
should be serious to implement its TRIPS obligations in phases to develop a culture of IPRs
117
protection and enforcement since it would not be possible to comply with the TRIPS
overnight once the transition period is over.
(Ref: Dr. Mohammad Towhidul Islam, The Daily Star, February 02 2016)
Biotechnology versus Indigenous knowledge: The Neem tree
The neem tree (Azadirachtaindica) originates from the Indian subcontinent and now grows in
the dry regions of more than 50 tropical countries around the world. The neem tree has
multiple uses. It is mentioned in Indian texts written over 2000 years ago and has been used
for centuries by local communities in agriculture as an insect and pest repellent, in human and
veterinary medicine, toiletries and cosmetics. It is also venerated in the culture, religions and
literature of the region.
Even though first report on pesticide property of neem was reported in India in 1928, only
after 30 years later systematic research work on neem was initiated. The past five decades
witnessed intensive investigation and upward trend to scientific interest in neem and its
diverse properties, resulting in large number of research publications, books and conferences
at national and international levels. It led to isolation and identification of hundreds of the
active compounds, from various parts with pesticide l, nematicidal, fungicidal, bactericidal,
anti inflammatory, anti-tumor and other properties and found its applications in pesticide,
medical, healthcare and cosmetic industry all over the world. Recently Bangladesh has started
manufacturing of some neem products like soap, oil, toothpaste, powder etc.
118
Since the 1980s, many neem related process and products have been patented in Japan, USA
and European countries. The first US patent was obtained by Terumo Corporation in 1983 for
its therapeutic preparation from neem bark. In 1985 Robert Larson from (USDA) obtained a
patent for his preparation of neem seed extract and the Environmental Protection Agency
approved this product for use in US market. In 1988 Robert Larson sold the patent on an
extraction process to the US Company W. R. Grace (presently Certis). Having gathered their
patents and clearance from the EPA, four years later, Grace commercialized its product by
setting up manufacturing plant in collaboration with P.J. Margo Pvt. Ltd in India and
continued to file patents from their own research in USA and other parts of world. Aside
from Grace, neem based pesticides were also marketed by another company, AgriDyne
Technologies Inc., USA, the market competition between the two companies was intense. In
1994, Grace accused AgriDyne a non-exclusive royalty-bearing license. During this period in
India large number of companies also developed stabilized neem products and made them
available commercially. The number of patents filed in this period were limited and
geographically confined to few countries.
The challenge to a neem based patent held by W. R. Grace & Co. has returned many of
intellectual property related issues controversies to center-stage globally.
These two cases not only created a global awareness on neem and its properties but also
raised issues on biopiracy, need for documentation of traditional knowledge, equitable
sharing of gains from traditional knowledge and harmonization of patent rule. Success of
revocation of European patent illustrates the requirement of systematic documentation of
knowledge whether traditional or scientific. Further these cases demonstrate the potential of
IPR in creating awareness, enthusiasm in scientists, entrepreneurs, organizations and society
and increased investments in research and development of products which compete in the
market place. This is evident from upward trend of patents filed globally on neem from 1994-
96 onwards – intense patent debate period and commercial product available in markets from
neem.
Largest number of patents is in USA (54) followed by Japan (35), Australia (23), India (14).
In India additionally more than 53 patent applications are pending for either gazette
notification or opposition since 1995. If granted India will have the largest number of patents
119
in neem. It itself illustrates that IPR does not stifle creativity and innovation but creates
challenges and opportunities to overcome the existing patents barriers by innovation and
invention. There is also an increasing trend of filing application through PCT.
An analysis of type of patents suggests that majority of them are for crop protection
applications (63%), followed by health care (13%), industrial (5%), veterinary care (5%),
cosmetics (6%) and others (8%). This trend is also shown in country wise granted patents.
For example in US out of 54 patents granted 31 were for crop protection rest for healthcare,
cosmetics, industrial and veterinary applications. Organization wise patents ownership
indicates largest number owned by Certis – W.R. Grace (49) followed by Rohm & Haas (36),
CSIR-India (14), Trifolio (9), Bayer (8) and EID Parry (6).
The neem tree has been recognized world over as a commercial opportunity. This is a
welcome sign – but the bio-diversity prospects of this tree cannot be a free access to the
entire world. It is now utterly urgent that the genetic fingerprints of our traditional wealth like
neem are properly documented. The Neem Foundation of India has repeatedly pointed out
that an immensely potential plant like neem should not be just left unrecognized and
unprotected.
Granting neem the status of National Tree would send out the right signals to the world. This
one move will help convert a national resource into a national asset.
The Tea Tree of Australia, Gingko Biloba of China, Ginseng of Korea, Guarana of the
Amazon and Aloe Vera of Mexico are huge money-spinners in the booming alternate therapy
market place of the West. Neem of Indian subcontinent can emerge as the biggest player of
them all – if we jointly or separately wake up in time with particular verities or species, take
charge and lead by farming policies and encouraging its use in its farmlands and public health
programs.
A small country like Korea could successfully globalize its national treasure GINSENG –
with an integrated approach, active research and development and positive promotion. It is a
hallmark of the success of Korean farmers and Governmental efforts. Indian subcontinent
must draw lessons from this example.
120
In early 90s, the European Patent Office granted patents to the US Department of Agriculture
and Multinational Agricultural Corporation (W.R. Grace of USA)
The patent was rejected on the basis that products derived from genetic resources (like peanut
oil, sugarcane, corn, etc.) cannot be patented. Not even be geographically indicated. There
were about 50 companies that tried to get patents on Neem Products and about 70 patents
were rejected. This dropped interest of Neem Oil by multinational mega corporations in the
agricultural area.
A case study on Biopiracy
(A classic case of biopiracy by transnational corporations is that of the neem tree in India.
Vandana Shiva provides the background to this attempt to appropriate an invaluable
biological resource of the South).
During 1994, Indian farmers staged one mass demonstration after another against the
proposed GATT Uruguay Round agreement. In March about 200,000 gathered in Delhi
demanding, among other things, that the draft treaty - known colloquially as 'the Dunkel
draft' after chief negotiator, Arthur Dunkel - should be translated into all Indian languages.
On 2 October, about half a million converged upon Bangalore to voice their fears about the
impending legislation, aware of the threat that GATT poses to their livelihoods, by allowing
multinational organizations to enter Third World markets at their expense.
In particular, many of them began to question the Dunkel Draft's call for an international
harmonization of property rights legislation. In their demonstrations, protesters carried twigs
or branches of neem, a tree found throughout the drier areas of India.
Several extracts of neem have recently been patented by US companies, and many farmers
are incensed at what they regard as intellectual piracy. The village neem tree has become a
symbol of Indian indigenous knowledge, and of resistance against companies, which would
expropriate this knowledge for their own profit.
A tree for all seasons

Of all the plants that have proved useful to humanity, a few are distinguished by astonishing
versatility. The coconut palm is one, bamboo another. In the more arid areas of India, this
121
distinction is held by a hardy, fast-growing evergreen of up to 20 meters in height –

Azadirachta indica, commonly known as the neem tree.
The neem's many virtues are to a large degree attributable to its chemical constituents. From
its roots to its spreading crown, the tree contains a number of potent compounds, notably a
chemical found in its seeds named azadirachtin. It is this astringency that makes it useful in
so many fields:
Medicine
Neem is mentioned in many ancient texts and traditional Indian medical authorities place it at
the pinnacle of their pharmacopeia. The bark, leaves, flowers, seeds and fruit pulp are used to
treat a wide range of diseases and complaints ranging from leprosy and diabetes to ulcers,
skin disorders and constipation.
Toiletries
Neem twigs are used by millions of Indians as an antiseptic tooth brush. Its oil is used in the
preparation of toothpaste and soap.
Contraception
Neem oil is known to be a potent spermicide and is considered to be 100% effective when
applied intra-vaginally before intercourse. Intriguingly, it is also taken internally by ascetics
who wish to abate their sexual desire.
Timber
Besides being hard and fast growing, its chemical resistance to termites makes neem a useful
construction material.
Fuel
Neem oil is used as lamp oil, while the fruit pulp is useful in the manufacture of methane.
Agriculture
The Upavanavinod, an ancient Sanskrit treatise dealing with forestry and agriculture, cites
neem as a cure for ailing soils, plants and livestock. Neem cake, the residue from the seeds
after oil extraction, is fed to livestock and poultry, while its leaves increase soil fertility. Most
importantly, neem is a potent insecticide, effective against about 200 insects, including
locusts, brown plant-hoppers, nematodes, mosquito larvae, Colorado beetles and boll weevils.
122
These properties, and others, known to Indians for millennia, have led to the tree's being
called in Sanskrit SarvaRogaNivarini, the curer of all ailments', or in the Muslim tradition,
Shajar-e-Mubarak, the blessed tree'. Access to its various products has been free or cheap:
there are some 14 million neem trees in India and the age-old village techniques for
extracting the seed oil and pesticidal emulsions do not require expensive equipment. A large
number of different medicinal compounds based upon neem are commonly available.
In the last 70 years, there has been considerable research upon the properties of neem carried
in institutes ranging from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute and the Malaria Research
Centre to the Tata Energy Research Institute and the Khadi and Village Industries
Commission (KVIC). Much of this research was fostered by Gandhian movements, such as
the Boycott of Foreign Goods movement, which encouraged the development and
manufacture of local Indian products. A number of neem-based commercial products,
including pesticides, medicines and cosmetics, have come on the market in recent years,
some of them produced in the small-scale sector under the banner of the KVIC, others by
medium-sized laboratories. However, there has been no attempt to acquire proprietary
ownership of formulae, since, under Indian law, agricultural and medicinal products are not
patentable.
Patent appeal
For centuries the Western world ignored the neem tree and its properties: the practices of
Indian peasants and doctors were not deemed worthy of attention by the majority of British,
French and Portuguese colonialists. However, in the last few years, growing opposition to
chemical products in the West in particular to pesticides, has led to a sudden enthusiasm for
the pharmaceutical properties of neem.
In 1971, US timber importer Robert Larson observed the tree's usefulness in India and began
importing neem seed to his company headquarters in Wisconsin. Over the next decade he
conducted safety and performance tests upon a pesticidal neem extract called Margosan-O
and in 1985 received clearance for the product from the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Three years later he sold the patent for the product to the multinational
chemical corporation, W R Grace and Co. Since 1985, over a dozen US patents have been
taken out by US and Japanese firms on formulae for stable neem-based solutions and
123
emulsions and even for a neem-based toothpaste. At least four of these are owned by W R
Grace, three by another US company, the Native Plant Institute, and two by the Japanese
Terumo Corporation.
Having garnered their patents and with the prospect of a license from the EPA, Grace has set
about manufacturing and commercializing their product by establishing a base in India. The
company approached several Indian manufacturers with proposals to buy up their technology
or to convince them to stop producing value-added products and instead supply the company
with raw material.
In many cases, Grace met a rebuff. M N Sukhatme, Director of Herringer Bright Chemicals
Pvt. Ltd, which manufactures the neem-based insecticide Indiara, was put under pressure by
Grace to sell the technology for a storage-stable neem extract, which does not require heating
or any chemical change. Sukhatme refused their offers, stating: 'I am not interested to
commercialize the product.'
But Grace eventually managed to arrange a joint venture with a firm called P J Margo Pvt.
Ltd. They are now setting up a plant in India which will process neem seed for export to the
US. Initially, the plant will process 20 tons of seed a day. They are also setting up a network
of neem seed suppliers, to ensure a constant supply of the seeds and a reliable price. Grace is
likely to be followed by other patent-holding companies. In 1992, the US National Research
Council published a report designed to 'open up the Western world's corporate eyes to the
seemingly endless variety of products the tree might offer'.
According to one of the members of the NRC panel, 'In this day and age, when we're not very
happy about synthetic pesticides, [neem] has great appeal.'
This appeal is blatantly commercial. The US pesticides market is worth about $2 billion. At
the moment biopesticides, such as pyrethrum, together with their synthetic mimics, constitute
about $450 million of this, but that figure is expected to rise to over $800 million by 1998.
'Squeezing bucks out of the neem ought to be relatively easy,' observes Science magazine.
124
Plagiarism or innovation?
Grace's aggressive interest in Indian neem production has provoked a chorus of objections
from Indian scientists, farmers and political activists, who assert that multinational companies
have no right to expropriate the fruit of centuries of indigenous experimentation and several
decades of Indian scientific research. This has stimulated a bitter transcontinental debate
about the ethics of intellectual property and patent rights.
In April 1993, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to US Congress set out some
of the arguments used to justify patenting:
'Azadirachtin itself is a natural product found in the seeds of the neem tree and it is the
significant active component. There is no patent on it, perhaps because everyone recognizes it
as a product of nature. But ... a synthetic form of a naturally occurring compound may be
patentable, because the synthetic form is not technically a product of nature, and the process
by which the compound is synthesized may be patentable.'
However, neither azadirachtin, a relatively complex chemical, nor any of the other active
principles have yet been synthesized in laboratories. The existing patents apply only to
methods of extracting the natural chemical in the form of a stable emulsion or solution,
methods which are simply an extension of the traditional processes used for millennia for
making neem-based products. The biologically active polar chemicals can be extracted using
technology already available to villages in developing countries, says Eugene Schulz, chair of
the NRC panel. Villagers smash'em [the seeds] up, soak [them] in cold water overnight,
scoop the emulsion off the top and throw it on the crops.'
W R Grace's justification for patents, therefore, pivots on the claim that these modernized
extraction processes constitute a genuine innovation:
'Although traditional knowledge inspired the research and development that led to these
patented compositions and processes, they were considered sufficiently novel and different
from the original product of nature and the traditional method of use to be patentable.'
125
'Azadirachtin, which was being destroyed during conventional processing of Neem Oil/Neem
Cake, is being additionally extracted in the form of Water Soluble Neem Extract and hence it
is an add-on rather than a substitute to the current neem industry in India.'
In short, the processes are supposedly novel and an advance on Indian techniques. However,
this novelty exists mainly in the context of the ignorance of the West. Over the 2,000 years
that neem-based biopesticides and medicines have been used in India, many complex
processes were developed to make them available for specific use, though the active
ingredients were not given Latinized scientific names. Common knowledge and common use
of neem was one of the primary reasons given by the Indian Central Insecticide Board for not
registering neem products under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Board argued that neem
materials had been in extensive use in India for various purposes since time immemorial,
without any known deleterious effects. The USEPA, on the other hand, does not accept the
validity of traditional knowledge and has imposed a full series of safety tests upon
Margosan-O.
The allegation that azadirachtin was being destroyed during traditional processing is
inaccurate. The extracts were subject to degradation, but this was not a problem since farmers
put such extracts to use as and when they needed them. The problem of stabilization arose
only when it needed to be packaged for a long time to be marketed commercially. Moreover,
stabilization and other advances attributable to modern laboratory technology had already
been developed by Indian scientists in the 1960s and 1970s, well before US and Japanese
companies expressed interest in them. Dr R P Singh of the Indian Agricultural Research
Institute asserts:
'Margosan-O is a simple ethanolic extract of neem seed kernel. In the late sixties we
discovered the potency of not only ethanolic extract, but also other extracts of neem ... Work
on the neem as pesticide originated from this division as early as 1962. Extraction techniques
were also developed by a couple of years. The azadirachtin-rich dust was developed by me.'
The reluctance of Indian scientists to patent their inventions, thus leaving their work
vulnerable to piracy, may in part derive from a recognition that the bulk of the work had
already been accomplished by generations of anonymous experimenters. This debt has yet to
be acknowledged by the US patentors and their apologists. The CRS report claims that 'the
126
method of scattering ground neem seeds as a pesticide would not be a patentable process,
because this process ... would be deemed obvious' - a statement that betrays either lamentable
misjudgment or a racist dismissal of indigenous knowledge. The discovery of neem's
pesticidal properties and of how to process it was by no means 'obvious', but evolved through
extended systematic knowledge development in non-Western cultures. In comparison to this
first non-obvious leap of knowledge, it is the subsequent minor derivatives that are 'obvious'.
From waste to wealth?

W R Grace and P J Margo also claim that their project benefits the Indian economy. It does
so, they say, by providing employment opportunities at the local level and higher
remuneration to the farmers as the price of Neem Seeds has gone up in the recent times
because value is being added to it during its process. Over the last 20 years the price of neem
seed has gone up from Rs300 a ton to current levels of Rs3000-4000 a ton.'
In fact, the price has risen considerably more than this: in 1992 Grace was facing prices of up
to $300 (over 8,000 rupees) per ton.
This increase in the price of neem seeds has turned an often free resource into an exorbitantly
priced one, with the local user now competing for the seed with an industry supplying
consumers in the North. As the local farmer cannot afford the price that the industry can, the
diversion of the seed as raw material from the community to industry will ultimately establish
a regime in which a handful of companies holding patents will control all access to neem as
raw material and all production processes. P J Margo claims that this is 'a classic case of
converting waste to wealth and beneficial to the Indian farmer and its economy'. This
statement is in turn a classic example of the assumption that local use of a product does not
create wealth but waste; and that wealth is created only when corporations commercialize the
resources used by local communities.
There is a growing awareness throughout India that the commoditization of neem will result
in its expropriation by multinational companies. On 15 August, Indian Independence Day,
farmers in the state of Karnataka rallied outside the offices of the District Collector in each
district, to challenge the claims of those multinational companies such as W R Grace
demanding 'intellectual property rights'. The farmers carried neem branches as a symbol of
collective indigenous knowledge.
127
Their campaign has been supported by many noted Indian scientists. Dr R P Singh expressed
his 'whole [hearted] support [for the] campaign against the globalization of the neem.' Dr B N
Dhawan, Emeritus Scientist at the Central Drug Research Institute, maintains: 'It is really
unfortunate that the benefits of all this work should go to an individual or to a company. I
sincerely hope that the neem will continue to remain available for use by people all over the
world without paying a high price to a company.'
Dr V P Sharma, Director of the Malaria Research Institute, agrees:
'We have discovered the repellent action of the neem oil. There is no question of anybody
else in India or outside taking a priority or patent on this aspect of neem oil. I would like this
discovery to be used as widely as possible to prevent nuisance from insect pests of public
health importance and in the prevention of diseases transmitted by them.'
(Ref: Vandana Shiva, The neem tree - a case history of biopiracy)
128
Chapter 5
Empirical Observations
It is good that recent year's scenario is a bit different than previous. Owners are now more
concern. Government is also taking various initiatives to establish copyright as well as
Intellectual Property Rights as a whole in Bangladesh. Even government is now giving more
emphasis on owners and other stakeholders opinion and to know what are their main
difficulties regarding IP. These initiatives are also making the owners group to pay more
attention to protect their IP rights. Recently an Association has been formed by the owners to
protect IP right violation named Intellectual Property Association of Bangladesh (IPAB).
Most of the leading local and multi-national companies are the member of the Association.
All the members are working for a common objective. They are working jointly with the
government and WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) as well. The Association
will give all the assistance required by the government to implement the relevant laws. IP
system in Bangladesh is inherited from British-India. But related rules and laws including
copyright law are reforming from time to time. Though both government and private owners
have positive views of establishing IP regime but it is really a matter of great regret that still
there are huge problems to ensure the protection.
It could be said that there should be an independent national IP policy to establish a common
framework to regulate the ownership and management of intellectual property from the
creation, protection, innovation, exploitation and technology transfer activities carried out by
the relevant body; to promote and facilitate the protection of Intellectual Property in line with
the TRIPS to facilitate commercialization of our IP resources wherever possible.
129
Chapter 6
Policy Options / Recommendations
Developed countries with high technological base and strong intellectual property (IP) regime
are progressing faster than developing countries. On the other hand, LDCs in general and
Bangladesh in particular could not gain much from the knowledge-based world because of
insufficient IP infrastructures. They are; however, keen to develop their own R&D
capabilities. At the same time, they are in dire need of technical and financial support to
benefit from global innovation and technological development. Each year Bangladesh
economy is losing lots of revenues due to the lack of awareness about IP as well as copyright.
Compared to other countries awareness of IP in Bangladesh is poor among researchers,
scientists, industrialists and others. As a member country of WIPO and signatory of TRIPS,
sufficient and trained manpower and IP communications are yet not developed. On the other
hand piracy, plagiarism and infringement problem is increasing day by day for insufficient
enforcement process. A Strong taskforce and administration is needed for effective
enforcement. Enforcement of IP right is also linked with police, the judiciary, magistrates and
customs authority. So, it can be clearly stated that to enforce the copyright law we have to
strengthen the system. Hence it is necessary to generate a core group of police officers,
customs officials and other enforcement authorities. Essentially, Bangladesh needs to develop
its own infrastructure and strengthen its financial and administrative capacities to encourage
innovation and enforcement of copyrights. It needs to develop a separate IP policy other than
copyright policy/act, formulate or strengthen some of the existing laws to make them TRIPS
consistent, restructure its institutions, and undertake training and awareness-raising
programmes among the policy makers, IP enforcing agencies and users. Apart from these, it
wishes to preserve its genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklores with a view to
gaining from commercialization of these resources. Again, if Bangladesh intends to promote
its cultural heritage like Nakshi Kantha, Nakshi Pitha, Jamdani, Black Goats, local varieties
of plants and genetic resources etc. it should obviously choose appropriate IP system.
Otherwise, there are chances to lose the resources due to misappropriation of these resources.
After the content analysis and a limited, but in-depth field research the study proposes
following recommendations:
130
1) A separate and balanced (chapter 2.3, page: 28-29) Intellectual Property act should be
developed other than copyright policy/act, formulate or strengthen some of the
existing laws to make them TRIPS consistent, restructure its institutions.
2) As copyright is a matter of broader aspect our all traditional knowledge, verbal
expression, musical expressions, expression by actions, cultural expressions, cultural
heritage & folklore, tangible expressions, language, sign, symbol, insignia etc. should
also be protected.
3) During further modification of the copyright act 2000, ratification of some
international conventions like Internet Treaty, Beijing Treaty (for protection of actor’s
interest) and Marrakesh Treaty (for ensuring blind’s right on copyright materials)
should be considered.
4) As reprinting and copying books are big concerns in our country, a Reprographic
Right Organization (RRO) should be formed for establishing a reprint management
system.
5) A policy should be formulated to control the mobile phone companies in using
popular songs as ringtones and welcome tunes.
6) After registration of copyright, there should be a barcode on the copyrighted
materials.
7) Ensuring writer’s copyright protection there should be arrangement of compulsory
agreement between the writer and publisher before the publication.
8) For monitoring and creating public awareness mobile court activities should be the
regular phenomenon. It is urgent to establish IP Protection courts, at least, in the
divisional level and train the judges and advocates and thus make the experts.
9) Actions by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) against film pirates must be continued
to stop the film piracy.
10) Copyright of film and TV content have to be protected and copyright offences should
be made un-bailable.
11) Regular training program should be arranged for creating awareness of the writers and
other copyright holders in order to make them capable for fighting for their own
rights.
131
12) As an academic matter copyright should be a text from the secondary level and basic
concept on IP laws to the undergraduates and post graduates courses in colleges and
universities should also be introduced.
13) There should be more study and consultation with international standards and
practices to make our copyright act 2000 updated. It is necessary to create awareness
through seminar, symposiums and national workshops among all classes’ educated
people of the country.
14) Initiative should be taken to recruit necessary officers and staff for the Department of
Patent, Design and Trademark & Copyright Office and train them on IP laws at home
and abroad.
15) All activities regarding copyright, trademark, patent, design, geographical indication
should be brought under a common umbrella (not separately under Cultural Affairs,
Industries and Commerce Ministry)
132
Conclusion
In conclusion we may emphasize on making a balanced Intellectual Property Policy which

should be a pragmatic one. It depends on the pre-policy consultation with adequate
homework and stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis will review expectations and
reservations of the citizens (chapter 2.3, page: 29). A relevant social movement like other
issue based social movements should be generated with all of the stakeholders working in the
field of intellectual property rights in Bangladesh.
On the other hand, if we look into the Sustainable Development Goals declared by the UN we
find that SDG 9 is ‘Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’. One of the targets of this goal is
to enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in
all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation
and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million
people and public and private research and development spending. So there is no substitute of
building a knowledge based society as well as economy in Bangladesh.
133
Bibliography
1. Aminuzzaman, Salahuddin M, Introduction to Social Research, Bangladesh

Publishers, Dhaka, 1991.
2. Aminuzzaman, Salahuddin M, Essentials of Social Research, Osder Publication,
Dhaka, 2011.
3. ingvb, gbRyiæi, eyw×e„wËK m¤ú` I evsjv‡`‡ki KwcivBU AvBb, aªæec`, XvKv, 2010|
4. ingvb, gbRyiæi, KwcivB‡Ui bvbv cÖm½, Rvwb©g¨vb eyK, XvKv, 2015 |
5. Ullah, Mahfuz, Intellectual Property Rights and Bangladesh, BELA and CFSD,
Dhaka, June 2002.
6. Hossain, Md. Milan, Present Situation of Copyright Protection in Bangladesh,

Bangladesh Research Publication Journal, July-August 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2,
Dhaka, 2012.
7. Hossain, Md. Milan, Intellectual Properties: Bangladesh Approach, International

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Volume 1, Issue 2, Dhaka, November,
2012.
8. Rahman, Md. Azizur, Intellectual Property Rights in Bangladesh, Dhaka Tribune,

Dhaka, 28 April 2013.
9. Uddin, M. Kamal, Report on Innovation and Intellectual property policy and

Strategy for Bangladesh, WIPO, Dhaka.
10. Puri, Mahima and Varma, Anjali, Intellectual Property Conventions and Indian
Law, Working Paper no. 166, Indian Council for Research on Intellectual Economic
Relations, July 2005.
11. Maker, Hamid, Intellectual Property Rights in Pakistan, Straight Talk, April 20,
2014.
134
12. Mansoor, Khawaja, Intellectual Property Law and Globalization, Karachi,

Pakistan.
13. ingvb, MvRx kvgQyi, KwcivBU AvB‡bi fvl¨, evsjv GKv‡Wgx, XvKv, 1997 (Rahman, Gazi Shamsur,
Explanation of Copyright Law, Bangla Academy, Dhaka, 1997).
14. Alikhan, Shahid, Socio-Economic Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection in

Developing Countries, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, March
2000.
15. Bellman, Dutfield and Melendez-Ortiz (ed.) Trading in Knowledge: Development

Perspectives on TRIPS, Trade and Sustainability, London-Sterling, VA: Earthscan
Publications Ltd, 2003.
16. Colston, Chaterine (1999), Principle of Intellectual Property Law, Cavendish

Publishing Limited, London.
17. World Intellectual Property Organization. (1998), Intellectual Property Reading

Material, Second Edition, Geneva.
18. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2002), What Is A Geographical

Indication? http://www.wipo.org/abouCgeographical_ind.html.
19. Convention on Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, signed at

Stockholm on July 14, 1967, Preamble, second paragraph.
20. Naznin, Atia S.M. (2011), “Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in Bangladesh: An
Overview”, Bangladesh Research Publication Journal, Volume: 6, issue: 1, pp 12-21.
21. Khondker, Bazlul H and Nowshin, Sonia. (2013), “Developing National Intellectual
Property Policy for Bangladesh: An Assessment of National Intellectual Property
System”.
135
22. Rahman, M, Intellectual Property Protection in Bangladesh: An Overview,

www.unescap.org/tid/mtg/ip_bang.pdf.
23. Akter, Sahela, Recent Development, Challenges and Responses for Capacity Building
in the field of Copyright and Related Rights: Perspective Bangladesh,
http://ipophil.gov.ph/document/f0c5c69e_Bangladesh%20Report.pdf.
24. http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en.
136

Golam Shafiuddin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Golam Shafiuddin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Golam Shafiuddin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Bangladesh

A Policy Making Perspective

Ph.D Course Supervisors

Professor Mahbubur Rahman

It is a great pleasure to express my heartfelt thanks and profound gratitude to my respected

I am thankful to other Faculty Members including my previous thesis supervisor Professor

AQSIQ: Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (China)

BSA: Business Software Alliance

CMO: Collective Management Organization

CEAC: Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council (India)

CPPA: Computer Program Protection Act (Korea)

DPDT: Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks

GD: General Diary

GAC: General Administration of Customs (China)

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

IPR: Intellectual Property Right

ICI: Imperial Chemical Industries (UK)

IPAB: Intellectual Property Association of Bangladesh

IPA: Intellectual Property Alliance

IPO: Intellectual Property Organization (Pakistan)

KIPO: Korean Industrial Property Office

KFDA: Korean Food & Drug Administration

LDC: Least Developed Country

MNCs: Multinational Corporations

MDTCA: Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (Malaysia)

NCA: National Copyright Administration (China)

NGO: Non Government Organization

PIPRA: Intellectual Property Rights Association (Pakistan)

PCT: Patent Cooperation Treaty

RRO: Reprographic Right Organization

RAB: Rapid Action Battalion

SIPO: State Intellectual Property Office (China)

SAIC: State Administration for Industry and Commerce (China)

SIT: Special Inspection Team (Korea)

TRIPS: Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

USTR: The US Trade Representative

WTO: World Trade Organization

WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization

Bibliography ................................. 134

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Information on Copyright Registration in 2014-15

Figure1: Distribution of different items of copyright in the year 2014-15

a) The policy and legal framework are weak;

c) Lack of awareness on IPRs;

d) Enforcement of IPRs, an essential element of the TRIPS Agreement, remains weak.

1.1 Identification of the Problem

1.2 Significance of the Problem

1.3 Review of Literature

Manzurur Rahman (2010) wrote a basic book on copyright practice in Bangladesh. It

Mahfuzullah’s (2002) pioneering study described intellectual property, evolution of the

Most important of all, according to Mahfuzullah, is the commitment of the political

Hossain’s ideas are well-researched and well-thought-through. The Government, in 2015,

1.4 Objectives of the Research

1.5 Research Questions

1.6 Research Hypotheses

1.7 Research Methodology

(1) Input of Laws

(2) Output of Laws

1.8 Scope and Limitations of the Research