1. INTRODUCTION:

The establishment of the TRIPS Agreement under the World Trade Organization in 1995 marked a transformative moment in the internationalization of intellectual property rights. For the first time, enforceable global standards were applied across various domains of IP, including copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications (World Trade Organization, 1995). The primary objective of TRIPS was to provide legal consistency across WTO member nations and stimulate innovation by protecting the rights of creators and inventors.

However, TRIPS has been widely criticized for favoring the commercial interests of developed countries and multinational corporations over the socio-economic needs of developing nations (Sell, 2003). In particular, countries like India, which depend heavily on generic pharmaceuticals, indigenous knowledge systems, and agricultural biodiversity, have encountered considerable difficulty in reconciling TRIPS obligations with domestic development priorities.

India’s response to TRIPS was to recalibrate its legislative framework while maximizing the use of built-in flexibilities. The country undertook major revisions to its intellectual property statutes—most notably the Patents Act, 1970—to meet TRIPS compliance while protecting public health and traditional knowledge. These changes enabled India to retain tools such as compulsory licensing and patent opposition, which are crucial for ensuring access to affordable medicines and technologies (Correa, 2002).

India has also positioned itself as a global advocate for more inclusive IP governance. Mechanisms like the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act of 2001 illustrate India’s commitment to preserving biodiversity and cultural heritage while resisting exploitative practices like biopiracy (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2023).

The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed structural weaknesses in the global IP regime. The unequal distribution of life-saving vaccines reignited calls for a TRIPS waiver to facilitate broader manufacturing and access. India, alongside South Africa, led this initiative at the WTO, prompting a partial agreement in 2022 focused on vaccine production (Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 2021; World Trade Organization, 2022). This development underscored the urgency of making the global IP framework more equitable and responsive to public health needs.

This paper delves into India’s TRIPS journey by analyzing the evolution of the agreement, sectoral impacts, emerging challenges, and the way forward in crafting a resilient and inclusive intellectual property regime.

2. Evolution of the Trips Agreement:

The origins of the TRIPS Agreement can be traced back to centuries-old efforts to formalize intellectual property protections. One of the earliest such efforts was the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474, which granted inventors exclusive rights over their creations. Over time, international cooperation emerged through agreements such as the Paris Convention of 1883 and the Berne Convention of 1886. While these treaties laid the groundwork for global IP recognition, they lacked robust enforcement mechanisms and allowed for substantial variation in national IP laws.

The momentum for harmonized international IP protection gained pace during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (1986–1994). Developed countries, particularly the United States and the European Union, pushed strongly for comprehensive IP protection, viewing it as essential for safeguarding the interests of knowledge-based industries. In contrast, developing countries—including India—voiced concerns about how stronger IP standards could hinder access to critical technologies and affect local industries (Watal, 2001).

The eventual compromise led to the inclusion of TRIPS in the Marrakesh Agreement, which established the WTO in 1995. TRIPS became one of the foundational agreements of the WTO, binding all member countries to minimum standards of IP protection. Although the agreement attempted to balance innovation with public welfare through certain flexibilities, critics argue that the balance has remained skewed in favor of commercial interests (Sell, 2003). For India, this marked the beginning of a complex legal and economic transition in aligning domestic IP laws with global norms.

3. Understanding Intellectual Property Rights Under Trips:

The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum, enforceable standards for various forms of intellectual property rights (IPRs), requiring member states to incorporate them into their national legislation. These include copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indications (GIs), trade secrets, and layout designs of integrated circuits (World Trade Organization, 1995). India’s efforts to comply with these provisions have led to significant overhauls in its legal system.

3.1 Copyrights and the Digital Era:

TRIPS mandates that copyrights extend to literary, musical, dramatic, and artistic works, including computer software and films, for a minimum of the author’s life plus 50 years. In response, India amended its Copyright Act multiple times, with the most significant update occurring in 2012. This amendment strengthened the rights of authors and performers, addressed the digital use of content, and aligned Indian law with the WIPO Internet Treaties. As digital and AI-generated content becomes increasingly prevalent, India has entered global debates over the ownership of creative works produced by autonomous algorithms—a matter not yet fully addressed by TRIPS but increasingly relevant (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2023).

3.2 Patents and Public Health:

Among all forms of IP, patents have sparked the most controversy, particularly regarding public health. TRIPS requires member states to provide 20-year patent protection for inventions across all technological fields, provided they meet the criteria of novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability. India’s compliance came through a phased amendment process culminating in the Patents (Amendment) Act of 2005, which introduced product patents in pharmaceuticals (Government of India, 2005).

Crucially, India retained protective measures such as Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which prevents “evergreening” by disallowing patents for minor modifications of known drugs. This clause played a decisive role in the rejection of Novartis’s patent application for a cancer drug in 2013. India also utilized compulsory licensing provisions, most notably in the 2012 case where Natco Pharma was permitted to produce a generic version of Bayer’s patented cancer drug (Correa, 2002). These moves underscored India's commitment to using TRIPS flexibilities to balance innovation with affordability and access.

3.3 Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and GIs:

TRIPS mandates protection for trademarks—distinctive signs or logos associated with goods and services—for renewable terms of at least seven years. India modernized its Trade Marks Act and digitized the registry process, improving efficiency and transparency. The Designs Act of 2000 governs the protection of industrial designs, and India is exploring accession to The Hague Agreement for international design registration.

Geographical Indications (GIs), which identify products based on their geographic origin and unique characteristics, have become a key focus area. India’s GI Act of 1999 has enabled the registration of over 400 products, such as Basmati rice, Banarasi sarees, and Darjeeling tea. India has also actively defended these claims internationally, including objections to Pakistan’s unilateral GI application for Basmati in the EU (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2023).

3.4 Trade Secrets and Uncodified Protections:

Although TRIPS requires member states to protect trade secrets against unfair commercial use, India does not yet have a dedicated statute for this. Currently, trade secrets are enforced through principles of contract law and tort. However, policy discussions are ongoing about codifying trade secret protections to enhance investor confidence and industrial competitiveness

4. Impact of Trips on the Indian Economy:

The TRIPS Agreement has had a profound impact on India's economic landscape. While it facilitated India’s integration into the global trade and innovation ecosystem, it also introduced challenges in key sectors. This section analyzes the sector-wise impact of TRIPS implementation on the Indian economy.

4.1 Pharmaceutical Sector: From Generics to Innovation Leadership:

Before TRIPS, India’s Patents Act, 1970 allowed only process patents, enabling local pharmaceutical companies to reverse-engineer drugs and supply affordable generics. This policy made India the “pharmacy of the developing world,” particularly in treating diseases like HIV/AIDS across low- and middle-income countries (Correa, 2002). However, TRIPS mandated the recognition of product patents, raising fears of restricted access and higher medicine costs.

India responded by gradually amending its patent laws and utilizing TRIPS flexibilities. A landmark example is the 2012 case of Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation, in which a compulsory license was granted to Natco to produce a low-cost generic version of Bayer’s cancer drug, Nexavar. This set a precedent for using legal tools to promote access to medicines while respecting IP obligations.

Simultaneously, Indian pharmaceutical companies began increasing investment in research and development, biosimilar, and novel delivery systems. Firms like Dr. Reddy’s, Cipla, and Biocon have moved up the value chain, establishing India as not only a generic powerhouse but also a rising hub for pharmaceutical innovation.

4.2 Agriculture and Biotechnology: Between Innovation and Sovereignty:

TRIPS Article 27.3(b) mandates protection of plant varieties either by patent or by a sui generis system. India chose the latter, enacting the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001. This law grants farmers the right to save, use, exchange, and sell seeds—preserving traditional agricultural practices—while also protecting breeders’ rights.

However, the rise of genetically modified (GM) crops and patent claims by multinational seed corporations has raised concerns about seed monopolies and farmer dependency on proprietary technologies. India’s experience with Bt cotton, for example, reflects both the potential and perils of biotech interventions. While crop yields improved initially, long-term ecological and economic outcomes remain contested. The debate over corporate control of seeds and pricing continues, underscoring tensions between TRIPS mandates and food sovereignty.

4.3 Traditional Knowledge and Biopiracy: From Exploitation to Empowerment:

India has long been a victim of biopiracy—where traditional medicinal or agricultural knowledge is patented abroad without consent or benefit-sharing. Famous examples include foreign patents on turmeric’s wound-healing properties and neem’s pesticidal applications (Watal, 2001).

To counter such exploitation, India developed the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), a publicly accessible repository documenting over 200,000 formulations from Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, and Yoga. This initiative has successfully prevented multiple unjust patent claims globally. TKDL has become a model for safeguarding indigenous knowledge and is often cited in WIPO and WTO forums as a best practice in defensive IP protection (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2023).

4.4 Geographical Indications: Rural Identity and Global Branding:

The TRIPS framework granted legal recognition to geographical indications (GIs), which India has leveraged to promote rural economies and cultural heritage. Since the enactment of the GI Act in 1999, India has registered more than 400 products, ranging from Darjeeling tea and Banarasi sarees to Pochampally ikat and Kangra tea.

GIs serve multiple purposes: they protect product authenticity, empower local artisans and producers, and open new channels for exports. Furthermore, GI branding offers rural communities a competitive edge in global markets while preserving traditional knowledge and production methods.

Despite these successes, challenges remain—particularly in marketing, enforcement, and global recognition. Strengthening GI enforcement and international collaboration is critical to maximizing their developmental potential.

5. Challenges and Critiques of Trips in India:

While TRIPS has facilitated India's integration into the global economy, it has also sparked enduring debates about equity, sovereignty, and developmental flexibility. Several systemic and sector-specific challenges persist, especially in areas such as public health, traditional knowledge, enforcement, and the digital economy.

5.1 High Costs and Limited Access to Essential Goods:

The transition from process to product patents—particularly in the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors—has led to significantly higher prices for life-saving medications and diagnostics. Although India has occasionally used tools like compulsory licensing, access to patented drugs for conditions such as cancer, hepatitis, and rare diseases remains limited for large sections of the population (Correa, 2002).

The COVID-19 pandemic reignited global concern over IP-induced access barriers. Despite India’s leadership in manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines, the high costs of patented technologies and licensing restrictions posed serious challenges in scaling up local production quickly. These tensions have reignited the debate over TRIPS’ compatibility with public health imperatives.

5.2 Weak Enforcement and IP Awareness:

India has made significant legal strides in aligning its IP laws with TRIPS, but enforcement gaps persist. Many small and medium enterprises (SMEs), artisans, and rural innovators lack the awareness, resources, or institutional support to protect their intellectual assets effectively.

Judicial backlogs, limited specialized IP benches in courts, and under-resourced enforcement bodies weaken the overall ecosystem. Furthermore, digital piracy, counterfeiting, and online infringement have surged in the digital age, making cross-border enforcement even more complex.

5.3 Biopiracy and Incomplete Traditional Knowledge Protection:

While the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) has played a vital role in preventing the misappropriation of indigenous knowledge, gaps remain. Many traditional innovations still exist outside formal documentation and are vulnerable to exploitation.

Calls have intensified within WTO forums for mandatory disclosure of origin in patent applications involving genetic resources or traditional knowledge. India has advocated for this, emphasizing benefit-sharing and prior informed consent, but resistance from developed countries has stalled progress (World Trade Organization, 2022).

5.4 TRIPS-Plus Provisions in Bilateral Agreements:

An emerging challenge is the proliferation of TRIPS-Plus provisions—clauses in bilateral or regional trade agreements that impose stricter IP obligations than TRIPS itself. These include extended patent terms, limitations on compulsory licensing, and stricter enforcement of data exclusivity.

India has faced such demands during negotiations for trade deals with countries like the EU and the U.S. Accepting TRIPS-Plus provisions could constrain India’s ability to protect public health, promote domestic innovation, and support traditional sectors. Hence, India has resisted these demands and called for more equitable trade arrangements (Sell, 2003).

5.5 Emerging Technologies: AI, Data, and the Digital Economy:

TRIPS was conceptualized in a pre-digital era and does not fully address emerging challenges related to artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and big data. This raises important questions about:

· Ownership of AI-generated inventions and works,

· Patentability of algorithm-based innovations,

· Data sovereignty and cross-border information flows,

· Enforcement of digital rights in e-commerce and cloud environments.

India is currently developing frameworks to address these gaps domestically. However, at the international level, policy ambiguity persists, and TRIPS remains outdated in addressing non-human innovation and intangible digital assets (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2023).

5.6 Global Health Emergencies and the TRIPS Waiver Debate:

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, India and South Africa jointly proposed a TRIPS waiver for vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments. This proposal garnered global attention and support from numerous developing countries and civil society organizations.

The partial waiver agreed upon in 2022, however, was limited in scope and applicability—primarily covering vaccines, and not extending to therapeutics or diagnostics (World Trade Organization, 2022). The prolonged debate highlighted structural inequities in the IP system and the urgent need to reform TRIPS to address global health emergencies more effectively.

India continues to push for broader waivers and automatic triggers for IP flexibility during future pandemics. The experience underscores the tension between rigid IP enforcement and the moral imperative of equitable access.

6. Trips and Public Health: Navigating The Access–Innovation Dilemma:

The intersection of intellectual property rights and public health has long been a contentious domain within the TRIPS framework. Nowhere has this tension been more evident than in the realm of pharmaceuticals, where strong patent protections can directly impact the availability and affordability of essential medicines.

6.1 The HIV/AIDS Crisis and the Doha Declaration:

In the late 1990s, the global HIV/AIDS epidemic highlighted the life-threatening consequences of limited access to patented antiretroviral drugs. Developing countries, especially in Africa and Asia, struggled to afford these treatments, which were priced out of reach due to exclusive patent rights held by multinational corporations. This humanitarian crisis galvanized international advocacy and led to the historic Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health

in 2001.

The Doha Declaration reaffirmed the right of WTO member states to prioritize public health and to use TRIPS flexibilities such as compulsory licensing and parallel imports to improve access to essential medicines (World Trade Organization, 2001). For India, this endorsement validated its approach to leveraging IP flexibilities in pursuit of equitable healthcare.

6.2 India’s Proactive Role in Safeguarding Access:

India has played a central role in using TRIPS-compliant mechanisms to safeguard access to medicines domestically and internationally. The country’s patent law, particularly Section 3(d), has been instrumental in preventing frivolous patents and ensuring the continued availability of affordable generics (Government of India, 2005). Additionally, India’s pharmaceutical industry has supported developing nations through the export of low-cost, high-quality generic drugs.

Notably, in 2012, India granted its first-ever compulsory license to Natco Pharma to manufacture a generic version of Bayer’s anti-cancer drug, Nexavar. The move was widely lauded as a pioneering use of TRIPS flexibilities to protect public health and set a precedent for other countries (Correa, 2002).

6.3 The COVID-19 Pandemic and the TRIPS Waiver Initiative:

The COVID-19 pandemic brought global health inequities into sharp focus. Despite unprecedented scientific breakthroughs, access to life-saving vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments remained uneven. Countries like India, despite being manufacturing hubs, struggled with vaccine shortages due to supply chain bottlenecks and restrictive IP regimes.

In October 2020, India and South Africa submitted a joint proposal to the WTO, seeking a temporary waiver of TRIPS provisions related to COVID-19 technologies. The proposal emphasized the need for international solidarity and rapid, affordable access to health tools in emergency contexts (Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 2021).

After prolonged negotiations, the WTO approved a partial waiver in 2022, allowing limited flexibilities for vaccine production (World Trade Organization, 2022). However, the agreement did not extend to therapeutics and diagnostics—limiting its impact. India and its allies have since continued advocating for broader reforms that enable swift and equitable responses during future health crises.

6.4 The Access–Innovation Balance: An Ongoing Debate:

TRIPS was designed to incentivize innovation through IP protection. However, when innovation becomes unaffordable or inaccessible, its public value is undermined. The debate over how to balance IP rights with global health priorities remains unresolved.

India’s position has consistently emphasized that innovation and access are not mutually exclusive. Through a robust generic industry, selective use of TRIPS flexibilities, and diplomatic advocacy, India has demonstrated how IP law can be navigated to promote both innovation and inclusivity. As pandemics and public health emergencies become more frequent, the global community must reassess how TRIPS can adapt to protect human life without stifling innovation.

7. The Way Forward For India:

As India emerges as a global knowledge economy, it must continue to navigate the evolving intellectual property (IP) landscape with strategic foresight. While adhering to international obligations under TRIPS, India must ensure that IP governance aligns with its developmental priorities, public health goals, digital innovation agenda, and traditional knowledge preservation.

7.1 Strategic Utilization of Trips Flexibilities:

TRIPS includes built-in flexibilities that allow countries to tailor IP enforcement in line with national interests. India has already demonstrated effective use of these tools through:

· Compulsory licensing (e.g., Natco v. Bayer, 2012), which enables generic production of patented drugs in public interest;

· Pre-grant and post-grant oppositions, which prevent frivolous or "evergreened" patents;

· Government-use provisions under Section 100 of the Patents Act.

In the post-COVID era, these flexibilities have become more critical. India and South Africa's 2020 proposal for a TRIPS waiver underscored the need for rapid, inclusive responses to public health emergencies. Though the 2022 waiver was limited to vaccines, India continues to push for expansion to include therapeutics and diagnostics (Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 2021).

Going forward, India should advocate for automatic, pre-approved waivers that can be activated during declared global emergencies, ensuring faster and fairer access to critical health technologies.

7.2 Strengthening the Domestic IP Ecosystem:

Despite having progressive IP legislation, India still faces challenges in implementation and awareness. The National IPR Policy (2016) provided a foundation, but it now requires an updated version that addresses:

· Sector-specific strategies for emerging technologies like AI, biotechnology, green energy, and space tech;

· Support systems for MSMEs, startups, and academic institutions, including financial assistance for IP audits and filings;

· Specialized IP courts and fast-track dispute resolution to reduce judicial backlog.

Additionally, the Startup Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) scheme should be scaled up to provide end-to-end IP support, especially in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities.

7.3 Digital Innovation and AI: The Next IP Frontier:

TRIPS was drafted in the 1990s and lacks clarity on several issues relevant to the modern digital economy. India must update both its domestic laws and international negotiating positions to address:

· AI-generated inventions and authorship rights,

· Patentability of software and data-driven algorithms,

· Cross-border digital piracy and content regulation.

At home, India can consider recognizing non-human inventorship, while ensuring human oversight and ethical guardrails. The recent Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) should also be harmonized with IP law to manage data ownership and innovation incentives in the information economy.

7.4 Promoting Traditional Knowledge and Geographical Indications:

India’s civilizational heritage is a rich source of traditional knowledge (TK) and unique products identified through geographical indications (GIs). Initiatives like the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) and GI Registry have made important strides, but more needs to be done.

India should:

· Push for mandatory disclosure of origin in patent filings involving TK and biological resources at the WTO;

· Strengthen marketing and international protection of GI products like Banarasi silk, Kolhapuri chappals, and Darjeeling tea;

· Provide legal and financial aid to rural artisans and tribal communities to help them claim and enforce IP rights.

These efforts can create economic value for local communities while preserving cultural identity.

7.5 Climate Change, Green Technology, and IP Reform:

India’s climate commitments, under initiatives like Mission LiFE and the National Action Plan on Climate Change, require access to green technologies. However, many clean energy innovations are patented and expensive, particularly in solar, wind, and carbon capture sectors.

India should:

· Advocate for TRIPS waivers or pooled patents on climate adaptation technologies;

· Promote public–private partnerships to develop open-source green tech;

· Offer fast-track patent approvals and incentives for indigenous green innovations.

At WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13, 2024), India emphasized the need to align IP regimes with sustainable development. It must continue to rally developing nations around this cause (World Trade Organization, 2022).

7.6 Enhancing Global and Regional Collaboration:

India must intensify South–South cooperation to build collective bargaining power. Strategic initiatives could include:

· A Global South Patent Pool for medicines and climate technologies;

· A Traditional Knowledge Coalition to demand reforms in TRIPS;

· Coordinated resistance to TRIPS-Plus clauses in bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs).

As trade agreements like the Indo-EU FTA and Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) progress, India must ensure that IP provisions do not undermine its socio-economic and developmental objectives.

8. Policy Recommendations:

Given the complex interplay between intellectual property rights, socio-economic development, and technological advancement, India must adopt a multi-pronged policy approach to ensure that its IP regime fosters innovation while promoting equity and access. The following policy measures are proposed to strengthen India’s domestic IP ecosystem and its role in shaping global IP norms.

8.1 Integrate IP Education into Multidisciplinary Curricula:

A foundational step in nurturing an innovation-driven economy is building awareness and understanding of IP among young professionals, researchers, and entrepreneurs. India should integrate intellectual property education into higher education curricula—particularly in science, engineering, law, and business streams.

· Collaborative modules developed by academic institutions and bodies like the National Innovation Foundation can help contextualize IP in the Indian setting.

· Emphasis should be placed on traditional knowledge, digital innovation, and sustainability to align with India's strengths and challenges.

Such early engagement with IP principles will build a culture of innovation and responsible IP use across sectors.

8.2 Leverage Digital Technologies for IP Governance

India should adopt emerging digital tools such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain to enhance IP protection and transparency.

· AI can automate prior art searches, classify patents, and detect infringements.

· Blockchain can enable tamper-proof registries for traditional knowledge, geographical indications, and copyrights.

For example, a blockchain-based platform documenting Ayurvedic formulations could serve as both a preventive and proactive tool against global biopiracy. These technologies can also help streamline IP application and enforcement processes.

8.3 Targeted IP Support for Startups and MSMEs:

Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and startups often struggle with IP due to lack of awareness and resources. India should institutionalize:

· Subsidized IP audits to help businesses identify patentable assets;

· Financial support schemes for filing patents, trademarks, and designs;

· Legal assistance cells attached to incubators and accelerators.

Government initiatives like Startup India and Make in India must expand their IP support offerings. Such steps can enhance competitiveness and help build a resilient domestic innovation ecosystem.

8.4 Strengthen Global Advocacy for Development-Oriented IP Norms:

India must maintain an assertive voice in multilateral forums like the WTO, WIPO, and G77, especially in:

· Advocating for broader TRIPS flexibilities on public health, climate tech, and digital access;

· Demanding mandatory benefit-sharing and disclosure of origin in patents involving traditional knowledge or genetic resources;

· Leading alliances of developing nations to push back against TRIPS-plus demands in trade agreements.

India’s coalition-building around the COVID-19 TRIPS waiver and its leadership in GI protection offer successful models for future diplomacy.

8.5 Support Public Health-Centric IP Pooling Initiatives:

To advance public health access, India should actively promote and participate in:

· The Medicines Patent Pool (MPP);

· The COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP);

· Region-specific IP-sharing platforms for essential medicines.

These initiatives facilitate voluntary licensing and technology transfer, allowing generic manufacturers to produce critical drugs at scale. India's robust pharma sector can play a pivotal role here, reaffirming its status as the “Pharmacy of the Global South.”

9. CONCLUSION:

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has played a transformative role in reshaping India’s intellectual property (IP) landscape. While it has opened new avenues for trade, innovation, and global integration, it has also posed significant challenges—particularly in the areas of public health, traditional knowledge, agriculture, and digital innovation.

India’s journey under TRIPS underscores the importance of adopting a balanced, development-oriented approach to IP governance. Through legislative reforms such as the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, the enactment of the PPVFR Act, the establishment of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), and the registration of over 400 Geographical Indications, India has shown how TRIPS-compliant frameworks can be adapted to protect public interest.

At the same time, India has utilized TRIPS flexibilities—including compulsory licensing and patent opposition mechanisms—to ensure access to affordable medicines and safeguard its innovation ecosystem. These efforts have been especially critical during global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, where India and South Africa's joint TRIPS waiver proposal reignited debates on equity in access to vaccines and diagnostics.

However, emerging challenges—such as AI-generated content, biopiracy, green technology patents, and digital piracy—require a more proactive and dynamic IP policy. India must now shift from reactive compliance to strategic leadership, shaping global norms while strengthening domestic enforcement, education, and innovation systems.

The policy recommendations outlined in this paper—from IP education and digital tools to public health-oriented IP pools—highlight the need for a sector-sensitive, inclusive, and future-ready IP regime. India must also continue its active engagement in multilateral forums, ensuring that global IP rules reflect the realities and aspirations of the Global South.

Ultimately, the TRIPS regime need not be a zero-sum game between innovation and access. With informed policy, stakeholder engagement, and diplomatic resolve, India can carve a path where intellectual property becomes a tool for empowerment—not exclusion—and where economic growth and social justice advance hand in hand in the knowledge age.

10. REFERENCE:

1. Correa, C. M. (2002). Implications of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67384

2. Gopakumar, K. M. (2020). TRIPS waiver proposal: A shot in the arm for access to COVID-19 products. South Centre. https://www.southcentre.int

3. Government of India. (2005). The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. Ministry of Law and Justice. https://legislative.gov.in

4. Ministry of Commerce and Industry. (2021). India’s statement on the TRIPS waiver proposal. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. https://dpiit.gov.in

5. Sell, S. K. (2003). Private power, public law: The globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press.

6. World Trade Organization. (1995). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf

7. World Trade Organization. (2001). Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (Doha Declaration). https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm

8. World Trade Organization. (2022). Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement: WT/MIN(22)/30. https://www.wto.org

9. Watal, J. (2001). Intellectual property rights in the WTO and developing countries. Kluwer Law International.

10. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2023). World Intellectual Property Indicators 2023. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4647

Received on 21.05.2025 Revised on 24.06.2025

Accepted on 22.07.2025 Published on 20.08.2025

Available online from September 02, 2025

Res. J. of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025;16(3):239-246.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00040

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.