TOPIC: WIPO TREATY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, GENETIC

RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

GROUP C
Group Members :
Anagha Sampath
Swetha Mathews
S Adhistaa
Adwaith
Sreekanth S
Hrithik Ratheesh
 Introduction

The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional
Knowledge addresses the pervasive issue of biopiracy, where indigenous peoples' and local
communities' genetic resources and traditional knowledge are exploited for commercial gain
without proper compensation or authorization. This exploitation often leaves the original
stewards unrecognized and uncompensated when products and patents are developed using
their resources. The treaty introduces a critical international requirement for patent applicants
to disclose if their discoveries are based on genetic resources or related traditional
knowledge. This disclosure aims to ensure fair compensation and acknowledgment for
indigenous populations, enhancing transparency in the patent system. The treaty upholds
states' sovereign rights over their genetic resources and emphasizes the importance of prior
informed consent and equitable benefit-sharing, aligning with the Convention on Biological
Diversity. It seeks to empower indigenous peoples and local communities by protecting their
rights and interests in their traditional knowledge and genetic resources, offering significant
opportunities to advance their protection globally.

Background of the treaty

The long-standing problem of biopiracy—the exploitation of indigenous peoples' and local
communities' genetic resources and traditional knowledge for commercial gain without
proper compensation or authorization—is addressed by the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual
Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge. In this method, the
communities who originally stewarded these resources are neither acknowledged or benefited
when products and patents are developed employing these resources.

For patent applicants whose discoveries are "based on" genetic resources or related traditional
knowledge, the treaty imposes a critical international requirement. The purpose of this
disclosure requirement is to guarantee that indigenous populations are fairly compensated and
acknowledged for their contributions, as well as to improve transparency in the patent
system.

The pact supports states' sovereign rights over their genetic resources and highlights the
significance of prior informed consent and equitable benefit-sharing, all of which are in line
with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Through defending their rights
and interests in their traditional knowledge and genetic resources, it aims to strengthen the
position of indigenous peoples and local communities. The treaty presents opportunities for
advancement in defending the rights of the relevant indigenous communities.

Key provisions of the Treaty

The treat has defined terms like Genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The key
provisions of this treaty are :

1. Disclosure Requirement : It states that each nation have to disclose the patent
application whenever the inventions are based on genetic reseoyrces or Traditional
knowledge. In Article 3 of the treaty it is tsated that the contracting parties shall
require applicants to identify the Indigenous Peoples or local community that
provided the related traditional knowledge, as well as the country of origin or source
of the GRs. All applicants obtaining patents within the jurisdiction of a contracting
party are subject to this disclosure requirement, including international applicants who
are exempt from such requirements in their own countries.
2. Remedy for failure of disclosure: The treaty also talks about how each of the
contries should give proportional sanction in the cases of non-disclosure. The
treaty also adds that the law cannot revoke or invalidate the patent in the absence
of “fraudulent conduct or intent.” Instead, they have to bring in laws like of
compulsory licensing etc. This treaty also mentions that the laws are not retroactive.
3. Information Systems and Relationship with Other Agreements: The treaty permits
(but does not mandate) contracting parties to create databases and other information
systems for GRs and related TK after consulting with local communities, Indigenous
Peoples, and other relevant parties. Subject to the necessary security measures, patent
offices should have access to these information systems for the purposes of search and
examination. The treaty also highlights how its implementation alongside other
pertinent international accords will benefit both parties.

OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY: WIPO TREATY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, GENETIC

RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and
Associated Traditional Knowledge primarily aims to aid the world working towards equity and
transparency by extending recognition to local and Indigenous communities of the world for their
contributions in extending the traditional knowledge that serves a wide variety of global interest along
with innovations in genetic resources. This could be further emphasized from the words of WIPO’s
director, who expressed the multilateral nature of WIPO and its historical achievement towards
making and bringing in the treaty to the world stage. The treaty holds its significance in possessing its
objective, that compulsorily requires for patent applicants to disclose the origin or the source of the
intellectual property dealing in genetic resources where it was found. Genetic resources incorporate
animal breeds, medicinal plant resources, Agricultural resources and the like. Also, it mandates to
mention the indigenous civilians or the local communities that aided in helping the world know about
a traditional knowledge that is closely associated while inventing genetic resources. This eventually
leads to a space of transparency, inclusivity, due recognition, and equity encompassing the primary
objective of WIPO, which is to meet the world’s diverse needs using intellectual property. This treaty
further directs its objectives towards the importance of patents being registered accurately and
avoiding erred patents that could include a so-called “invention” that is not innovative or new. The
emphasis for this objective is specially laid on genetic resources associating traditional knowledge
that signifies the treaty’s aim towards the protection of the same by calling out the patent offices of
the world to give due importance and consideration to do away with errored patent acceptances. In
addition, the treaty played the role of an international interference by laying down rules to implement
the importance of inclusivity in giving recognition to Indigenous and local communities for their
contributions to genetic resources innovations through traditional knowledge by giving directions
through the treaty. This exhibited the significance of an international rule’s role in creating a
productive space globally. They further hold the objective to share knowledge, inventions,
innovations, or discoveries with the world to meet a larger need and for a bulk prowess in the global
economy. Along with these, the treaty lends a supporting hand to international agreements dealing
with the interplay of intellectual property with genetic resources associated with traditional known

Neem Patent Controversy: A Landmark Case of Biopiracy and Traditional

Knowledge Protection
Neem, known scientifically as Azadirachta indica, is a versatile tree native to the Indian
subcontinent, renowned for its medicinal, agricultural, and industrial applications. Often
referred to as "nature's pharmacy," neem possesses antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal
properties that have been harnessed for centuries in traditional medicine. Recent scientific
studies have further highlighted its potential in sustainable agriculture and biopesticides,
making neem a subject of increasing global interest.
Neem patents have sparked significant controversy in India. The neem tree, used traditionally
for its medicinal and pesticidal properties, attracted international interest in the 1970s. Grace,
a U.S.-based company, patented a stable storage formulation for azadirachtin, neem's active
ingredient, in the U.S. and EU. Activists labeled this "biopiracy," arguing it exploited Indian
farmers' ancestral knowledge and might impact their usage of neem. Despite Grace's defense
that the patents were limited and wouldn't affect traditional use, the outcry led to petitions for
revocation. The U.S. patent was upheld, but the EU patent was eventually revoked. This
controversy has fueled ongoing debates about intellectual property rights and the
commercialization of traditional knowledge in India.

The neem patent controversy highlighted the tension between traditional knowledge and
modern intellectual property laws. It underscored the need for equitable benefit-sharing and
clearer legal frameworks. This case continues to influence debates on patent ethics and
biopiracy in India and globally.

THE TURMERIC PATENT CASE

The story of the turmeric patent illustrates a significant moment in the intersection of
traditional knowledge, intellectual property rights, and national interest. On July 2, 1996, N.
Subbaram, then head of the Intellectual Property Management Department (IPMD) of the
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in India, noted the grant of US patent
number 5,401,504, titled "Use of turmeric in wound healing." The inventors, Suman K. Das
and Hari Har P. Cohly, had assigned the patent to their employer, the University of
Mississippi. Subbaram believed the patent should not have been granted because it lacked
novelty and was obvious, given turmeric’s well-established use in traditional Indian medicine
for wound healing.

Subbaram argued that the use of turmeric in this context was part of India's traditional
knowledge, predating the patent application filed in December 1993 by centuries. He also
believed the pharmacokinetics of turmeric were already well known, making the patent’s
claims obvious. Despite his concerns, the patent was only enforceable in the US and not in
India, leading Subbaram to question the need for CSIR to challenge it.

However, Subbaram recommended that the CSIR initiate re-examination proceedings before
the USPTO to invalidate the patent on grounds of novelty, leveraging prior art from India.
Re-examination could also challenge the lack of inventiveness of the patent. Typically,
patents are contested by market competitors rather than national governments, but in this
case, Subbaram’s superiors, agreeing with his recommendation, decided to proceed with the
challenge, citing national interest.

A comprehensive search for documentation on turmeric’s wound-healing properties was

undertaken. Institutions such as Dabur India and Hamdard University provided relevant texts,
some dating back centuries, to support the re-examination request filed before the October 28
deadline. The request led to a re-examination ordered by the USPTO in January 1997, and by
August, the patent was invalidated based on the evidence provided, which showed that the
use of turmeric for wound healing was indeed well-known.

The CSIR celebrated this as a significant victory, showcasing India's traditional knowledge
on the global stage. This success was seen as a step towards patent literacy in India and
reinforced the notion that India could protect its traditional knowledge within the global trade
regime.

The series of patent challenges led to the creation of the Traditional Knowledge Digital
Library (TKDL), aimed at documenting India's traditional knowledge in a format accessible
to international patent examiners, thereby preventing the grant of patents based on this
knowledge. The TKDL represents a proactive step to protect traditional knowledge and
ensure it is recognized as prior art in patent examinations globally.

BASMATI RICE CASE

The Basmati case centered around RiceTec, a Texas-based company, securing a US patent
(US 5,663,484) for "Basmati rice lines and grains," causing outrage in India. This patent,
discovered in 1997, involved multiple IP issues including patents, trademarks, and
geographical indications. The controversy arose during intense competition between the US
and India for the European market. RiceTec's patent was for a breeding method to create
hybrid rice lines with characteristics similar to Basmati, rather than claiming the name
"Basmati."

The Indian government, supported by scientists and activists, contested the patent, leading to
a re-examination by the USPTO. By 2001, 17 out of 20 claims of the RiceTec patent were
revoked, reducing the patent's scope significantly. This case, along with earlier disputes over
neem and turmeric, prompted India to establish the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library
(TKDL) to document traditional knowledge and prevent biopiracy. The TKDL aims to
provide accessible prior art to patent examiners worldwide to prevent the erroneous granting
of patents on traditional knowledge.

Scope and Efficiency of the New WIPO Treaty

The recent WIPO Treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources, and traditional
knowledge (GRATK Treaty) endeavors to bring into a global legal framework the protection
of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK). The treaty is an important first step in
securing legal protections and acknowledgment of the important role of Indigenous
communities and local populations with regards to intellectual property and genetic
resources.

Scope

The WIPO Treaty is the first WIPO document that deals with this interface between
intellectual property rights and genetic resources as well as traditional knowledge. The
agreement is also groundbreaking for its explicit and detailed provisions for Indigenous
Peoples and local communities, a long overdue milestone. The new treaty covers a broad
range of issues related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK)1.

It requires the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources and associated TK in patent
applications, providing for a global regime that problematizes these issues systematically. It
supports the implementation of databases for genetic resources and TK. These systems are
designed to support patent offices in their search and examination processes, thereby
enhancing the recognition and protection of TK2.

It encourages collaboration among the member states and other stakeholders, such as
indigenous people and local communities. Participation of all partners is indispensable for the
implementation of the Treaty and for questions originating from the access to and sharing of
benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. It includes a built-in process of

1
JIAO Fei, GRATK/DC/7 Prov., (May 24, 2024),
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/gratk_dc/gratk_dc_7.pdf.
2
Id.
review and revision as and when new and emerging technology necessitates. This setup
guarantees the future efficacy and efficiency of the treaty3.

Efficiency

Administrative tasks relating to the treaty are overseen by the International Bureau of WIPO.
This bureau operates to coordinate and run meetings and technical working groups centrally
to ensure processes are seamless and decisions are made quickly.

Once the treaty comes into force with fifteen contracting parties, it will create new
obligations for disclosure in international law for those who seek patents for inventions
originating from genetic resources and/or associated TK. The Assembly of Contracting
Parties is involved in the administration and development of the treaty, which includes the
following duties: treaty monitoring, formation of technical working groups, and coordination
of the parties to the contract.
Here, the treaty focuses on technical cooperation and capacity building for developing
countries to enable them to implement the treaty provisions in their countries. This support is
crucial in improving not only the effectiveness but also the outcomes of the treaty as well.
The whole aspect of arriving at the treaty is to ensure that all the member countries are
involved. Hence, it is made consensual with voting in mind, when consensus cannot be
made4.

Consequences arising out of the Implementation of the Treaty in India

The new treaty established by WIPO highlighted the need for the establishment of strong
legal frameworks for the protection of TK and GR. This is especially relevant for India as it
has a large pool of both of them, in terms of human and financial resources. The
consequences for India encompass strengthening and possibly developing new legislation in
order to prevent the misuse of TK and GR by outsiders. The treaty calls for the protection of
TK through documentation as a way of preventing biopiracy and setting prior art in a manner
that prevents unscrupulous patents on traditional knowledge.

As for the issue of the disclosure of origin, the new treaty provides that the applicants for
patents must reveal the source of genes and indigenous knowledge that has been used in the

3
Prashant Reddy T & Sumathi Chandrashekaran, Create, Copy, Disrupt: India’s Intellectual Property
Dilemmas Chapter 9 (2017).
4
WIPO Member States Adopt Historic New Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated
Traditional Knowledge, https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2024/article_0007.html.
creation of inventions5. This requirement is meant to promote compliance with access and
benefit-sharing measures and ensure that these are not concealed. For India, this requires
strengthening the surveillance and enforcement to guarantee compliance with the said
disclosure requirements by foreign parties that use Indian GR and TK.

In addition, the treaty provides that the benefits which are to be derived from the utilization
of the genetic resources and traditional knowledge shall be shared in equal measure with the
countries or communities which have provided such resources or knowledge. This complies
with the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Indian Biological
Diversity Act, thus strengthening India’s position on the issue of benefit-sharing which may
increase the financial gains and developmental benefits accruing to the local communities.

The WIPO treaty was recently implemented in India, and it brings both the prospects and the
risks into consideration. Some significant challenges to realizing all these benefits include the
challenge of documenting traditional knowledge, addressing disclosure requirements, and
addressing benefit sharing. Therefore, it will be necessary for India to invest heavily in terms
of developing its capacity, strengthening inter-agency cooperation and possibly revising the
existing laws in order to effectively implement the provisions of the treaty.

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 defines certain rules and regulations related to patents
involving TK and biological resources. Section 3(p) of the Act provides that any invention
that only involves discovering a law of nature, mathematical formula, or an aesthetic creation
cannot be granted a patent6. The WIPO treaty, which seeks to protect traditional knowledge,
is expected to give rise to potential conflicts with these provisions, thus leading to questions
and problems of enforcement.

Similarly, The Biological Diversity Act 2002, dealing with access to biological resources and
associated traditional knowledge, requires prior informed consent and sharing of benefits 7.
The new WIPO treaty might mean that these requirements have to be complied with, which
could be a problem due to the treaty’s broad international provisions and India’s highly
regulated national context.

The TKDL in India has sourced vast traditional knowledge from various sources, and there
has been debate on the copyrights of the original works deposited in the TKDL. Some of
these sources contain information under copyright and there are concerns as to whether
5
Nishith Desai, Patent Litigation in India, (2021).
6
Indian Patent Act § 3(p) (Official website of Intellectual Property India 1970).
7
Biological Diversity Act (National Biodiversity Authority 2002).
proper permission has been sought by TKDL from the copyright holders. The WIPO treaty
may exacerbate these concerns by increasing the use of TKDL data without addressing the
underlying copyright issues8.

Presently, through strict non-disclosure agreements, the TKDL is available to only a handful
of international patent offices. That is why making the WIPO treaty’s access wider can cause
data security problems and improper usage of information. Also, since the current restricted
access policy has been an issue of controversy domestically, and thus, opening up
international access will only aggravate such issues and possibly lead to legal battles 9.

The management of TKDL lies under the domain of the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR), which is a research and patents organization. This has raised questions
about the impartiality of institutions in offering services to clients. A possible requirement in
the administration of the treaty from WIPO may require the relocation or decentralization of
the TKDL to reduce conflicts of interest and bias in administration10.

Additionally, the WIPO treaty may require huge capital investment and personnel to ensure it
is put into practice. Given the studies that pointed out the lack of adequate funding within the
Indian scientific community, investing in the WIPO treaty at the expense of other scientific
developments may be controversial. Another potential difficulty will be to guarantee the
proper consumption of funds and to avoid the drain of resources in other important sectors.
The WIPO treaty can be implemented in India only if there are solutions to some complex
problems involved in this process. These include harmonizing the treaty with existing laws,
settling conflicts regarding copyrights within TKDL amiably, and instituting neutral
management. This is where the policymakers are challenged to balance these hurdles to
protect the Indian system of traditional knowledge and, at the same time, conform to global
standards. To achieve this, there is a need to develop an effective legal and administrative
regime to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources, provide for fair and proper
distribution of benefits, and promote and monitor disclosure requirements. However, getting
there has faced some challenges along the implementation trajectory of the treaty, which is in
line with India’s broad goals of preserving its’ rich bio-diversity and wealth of indigenous
knowledge for posterity.
8
Prashant Reddy, Is the TKDL a ‘Confidential Database’ and is It Compliant with Indian Copyright Law?,
SPICYIP , 29 March 2012, available at http://spicyip.com/2012/03/is-tkdl-confi dential-databaseand-is-it.html.
9
Nadkarni, Abha, and Shardha Rajam. "Capitalising the benefits of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)
in favour of indigenous communities." NUJS L. Rev. 9 (2016): 183.
10
Prashant Reddy, Patent Office Objects to Attempts by CSIR & Co. to Patent Traditional Knowledge and
Access Biological Resources Without NBA Approval, SPICYIP, 9 November 2012.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Strengthening local legal frameworks involves aligning national laws with the WIPO treaty
provisions on ABS, PIC, and MAT. This requires revising the Biological Diversity Act, 2002,
and enhancing legal mechanisms to enforce ABS agreements, including penalties for non-
compliance. Institutional strengthening of bodies like the National Biodiversity Authority
(NBA) is crucial, alongside integrating traditional knowledge protections to prevent
exploitation.

Increasing awareness and capacity-building among stakeholders is essential. Educational

campaigns and training programs should inform local communities, researchers, and
businesses about their rights and obligations under the treaty. Developing accessible
resources and engagement platforms will facilitate understanding and compliance with the
treaty’s provisions. This empowers communities to participate actively in negotiations and
safeguard their interests.

Fostering international cooperation ensures effective enforcement of the treaty. Promoting

global collaboration helps standardize treaty provisions and manage transboundary genetic
resources and TK. Participating in international monitoring systems enhances transparency
and accountability. Establishing international dispute resolution mechanisms provides a fair
way to handle conflicts, ensuring benefits are shared equitably and reducing legal loopholes.

These recommendations aim to improve compliance, empower communities, and foster

international collaboration, ensuring the effective implementation of the WIPO treaty in
India.

Challenges Faced in Implementing the WIPO Treaty in India

1. Identification of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: India, as a landmass,

comprises vast and diverse ecosystems spread across various regions, is home to
diverse genetic resource base, including plant, animal, and microbial resources. We
also have numerous Indigenous and local communities who possess valuable
traditional knowledge associated with these forementioned genetic resources.
 The Treaty requires an accurate and detailed disclosure of the origin of genetic
resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications, but in India, the
vast available biodiversity and indigenous communities make it a challenge to
identify and document these resources.

2. Legal and Administrative Burden: The balancing of the Intellectual Property Rights
protection with the need to prevent biopiracy and ensure fair use of genetic resources
and traditional knowledge poses a significant challenge. Attempting to ensure that
patent applicants comply with disclosure requirements adds a significant legal and
administrative burden as this includes verifying the accuracy of the disclosed
information and managing disputes that may arise regarding the ownership and origin
of genetic resources. This involves creating robust legal frameworks that support
innovation while safeguarding community rights. This requires legislative
amendments and the development of new regulations, which can be time-consuming
and politically sensitive.
3. Protection of Indigenous Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms: The Treaty
emphasizes fair and equitable benefit-sharing with indigenous communities who
provide genetic resources and traditional knowledge. A significant portion of
traditional knowledge in India is passed down orally or through traditional practices,
without formal documentation. Implementing effective benefit-sharing mechanisms in
India is complex due to diverse community structures and varying levels of awareness
and organization among indigenous groups. Additionally, some communities may be
hesitant to share their traditional knowledge due to concerns over misappropriation or
loss of control.
4. Community Consent, Participation and Capacity building: Effective implementation
of the treaty would require significant capacity building within patent offices,
regulatory bodies, and stakeholder communities. But ensuring informed consent and
active participation of indigenous communities in decisions regarding the use of their
genetic resources and traditional knowledge can be challenging. This requires
extensive outreach and capacity-building efforts. Plus, indigenous and local
communities also need to be empowered with knowledge about their rights and the
provisions of the treaty to ensure their participation and benefit-sharing.
5. Lack of Resources: The enforcement of compliance and adequate monitoring of the
Treaty’s provisions require substantial resources, which may be limited in India. This
 includes financial, technical, and human resources needed to establish and maintain
databases, conduct inspections, and handle legal proceedings. Effective
implementation would require coordination and collaboration among various
stakeholders, among various government agencies (such as the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the
Ministry of Science and Technology), the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA),
patent offices, and local governance bodies, and indigenous and local communities.
This can be challenging due to bureaucratic hurdles, rampant red-tapism and
overlapping jurisdictions.

SIMILAR TREATIES

 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), established in 1992, is a significant

international agreement aimed at promoting sustainable development. Its primary
goals are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its
components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic
resources. The CBD acknowledges the sovereignty of states over their natural
resources and encourages the creation of access and benefit-sharing (ABS)
agreements, ensuring that countries and communities providing genetic resources
receive a fair share of the benefits resulting from their utilization.

 Building on the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol was adopted in 2010 to provide a more
detailed legal framework for implementing fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from the use of genetic resources. The protocol facilitates access to genetic
resources and traditional knowledge associated with them, and it specifies that
benefits – whether monetary or non-monetary – should be shared with the countries or
communities providing these resources. This agreement aims to create greater legal
certainty and transparency for both providers and users of genetic resources, fostering
trust and cooperation.

 The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(ITPGRFA), known as the Seed Treaty, was established in 2001. Its primary objective
is to ensure food security by conserving, exchanging, and sustainably using the
world’s plant genetic resources vital for food and agriculture. The treaty includes a
multilateral system that facilitates access and benefit-sharing for a specified list of
essential crops, aiming to ensure that these resources are conserved and available for
future generations while ensuring that benefits derived from their use are shared
equitably.
  Adopted by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, the
Swakopmund Protocol (2010) is a regional treaty focusing on the protection of
traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore. It provides a framework for
registering and managing rights related to traditional knowledge, ensuring that
communities and individuals who hold such knowledge receive recognition and
benefits from its use. The protocol aims to safeguard cultural heritage and promote the
sustainable use of traditional knowledge.

 The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), although not a

legally binding treaty, is a landmark declaration adopted in 2007. It outlines the rights
of Indigenous peoples globally, including their rights to cultural heritage, traditional
knowledge, and intellectual property. UNDRIP emphasizes the need for free, prior,
and informed consent (FPIC) from Indigenous communities for activities affecting
their lands and resources. This declaration aims to protect the cultural and intellectual
property of Indigenous peoples, ensuring their active participation in decisions
impacting their lives.

 Lastly, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

(TRIPS), part of the World Trade Organization agreements since 1994, sets down
minimum standards for various forms of intellectual property regulation. While
primarily focused on conventional intellectual property rights, TRIPS also includes
provisions relevant to the protection of plant varieties and traditional knowledge.

Conclusion

The implementation of the WIPO Treaty in India offers a promising framework for protecting
genetic resources and traditional knowledge, aligning with global standards to combat
biopiracy. The treaty's focus on disclosure requirements, benefit-sharing, and international
cooperation addresses long-standing issues of exploitation and misappropriation of
indigenous resources. However, India faces several challenges, including identifying genetic
resources, managing legal and administrative burdens, protecting indigenous rights, and
ensuring community participation. To effectively implement the treaty, India must strengthen
its legal frameworks, increase awareness among stakeholders, and foster international
collaboration. Addressing these challenges will require substantial investment in capacity
building, coordination among various agencies, and possibly revising existing laws. By
overcoming these hurdles, India can safeguard its rich biodiversity and traditional knowledge,
ensuring equitable benefits for indigenous and local communities while contributing to global
efforts in protecting intellectual property rights.