TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May26/03)
10 May 2026
Third World Network 

WIPO: North–South Divide Deepens in WIPO Development Committee Over Project Proposals

10 May (Sreenath Namboodiri) – During the second and third days of the 36th session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), fault lines between developed and developing countries became increasingly pronounced.

The discussions highlighted the persistent difficulty of achieving consensus within a committee whose core mandate to integrate development considerations into the global intellectual property (IP) system continues to be resisted by some of the world’s major IP-exporting countries.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) CDIP is meeting in Geneva from 4 to 9 May. 

With multiple projects of importance being discussed in the session, the United Kingdom (UK) Project Proposal to develop strategies and tools for cross-border IP enforcement was most controversial. 

Developing countries pressed for development-oriented, demand-driven projects that address the realities of developing and least developed countries (LDCs).

Group B, coordinated by Germany, consistently expressed support for proposals advancing IP protection and enforcement.

The United States (US) in particular stood up with strong objections on matters relating to climate technology transfer and handicraft artisans empowerment; ultimately blocking four out of five proposals tabled by WIPO Members.

Only the project proposal on “Developing IP Valuation and Commercialization Mechanisms” submitted by the Group of Central Asian, Caucasus and Eastern European Countries was approved.

UK Project Proposal on IP Enforcement Project

UK’s project proposal titled “Development of Strategies and Tools to Address Cross-Border Trade in Counterfeit Trademark Goods”, was a revised proposal focused on customs capacity-building to detect and interdict counterfeit goods at the border.

The project proposal was submitted by the UK and co-sponsored by Lesotho, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand, as contained in document CDIP/36/16.

While the project is officially framed as a capacity-building initiative to assist developing countries in confronting counterfeit goods, critics have noted that “cross-border trade in counterfeits” is terminology that has historically been wielded to impose TRIPS-plus enforcement obligations through WIPO's technical assistance pipeline, and obligations that go beyond the baseline required by the TRIPS Agreement and that can criminalise legitimate generic production, parallel imports, and informal trade.

Thus unsurprisingly, the proposal generated strong opposition from developing countries who argued it attempted to shift the CDIP's mandate away from systemic development issues toward an enforcement agenda driven by northern commercial interests.

Brazil was among the most direct in its opposition, stressing that “The fundamental issue is that it shifts the Committee's focus away from the structural and systemic challenges identified by developing countries, towards instead an enforcement agenda that does not reflect the development rationale of this Committee”.

India sounded alarm about the implications for legitimate trade flows, including for generic medicines. It said, “IP enforcement is governed by the principle of territoriality” and expressed concern that “the current proposal moves towards harmonization of enforcement tools that overlooks the unique legal traditions, socioeconomic realities and developmental stages of Member States”.

India further added that, “… critical TRIPS flexibilities that is Article 7, 8 and 61 appear only in footnotes and are not embedded in the actual training materials or operational guidelines. These articles need to be fully operationalized within the guidelines, particularly the principle of commercial scale threshold from Article 61. It is also important to ensure that enforcement does not impede legal flexibilities such as parallel imports by establishing robust procedural safeguards for MSMEs and small scale producers who may lack the resources to navigate complex cross-border disputes”.

India concluded by calling the development frame of the project “cosmetic”.

Iran said that “the question before this Committee is not whether the challenge of cross-border trade in counterfeit goods is real, it is. Nor is it, whether developing countries may be affected, they may be. The question, rather, is whether this project as designed serves the mandate of this Committee and the priorities of developing countries members. The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property exists to ensure that Intellectual Property serves development. Its project portfolio should reflect the needs and priorities of developing and least developed countries as the primary beneficiaries. Just in one case, when we examined the economic data underlying this proposal, notably that the overwhelming majority of affected trademarks value resides in brands from developed economies”.

The US supported UK’s proposal stating that “the project outputs will help provide the necessary knowledge, technical skills and tools for custom officials to better detect and interdict counterfeit goods at the border”.

In view of the lack of consensus, the proposal was deferred to the next CDIP session.

[The inclusion of Lesotho, an LDC, among the co-sponsors of CDIP/36/16 is notable. It allows proponents to argue that Lesotho's co-sponsorship demonstrates genuine developing country support for the initiative. Critics may however  consider that the co-sponsorship  does not resolve the structural question of whether an enforcement-focused project is the right use of CDIP resources. It also raises the question whether the LDC will benefit from its outputs, or is the project mainly about protecting foreign corporations’ market exclusivity.]

Dominica’s Project on IP & Climate Resilience

Dominica introduced a proposal titled “Leveraging Intellectual Property Systems for Climate Resilience” to harness IP mechanisms for climate adaptation and resilience, with particular urgency for Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

The proponent made the stakes clear: “For small island developing states like Dominica, this project is not theoretical. It is immediate and deeply personal; Intellectual Property must be strategically positioned at the centre of climate action and resilience”.

The US registered its categorical opposition both to the project's framing and to its approach to technology transfer. It said, “The United States opposes this project proposal and will not support its approval. It treats climate change as a central organizing principle for IP policy and development work. WIPO is a specialized agency, it is not a climate agency.”

On the question of technology transfer, it said that the US “... maintains that any technology transfer must be on both voluntary and on mutually agreed terms, period”.

Brazil pushed back against the US effort to insert restrictive language on technology transfer warning that “the proposal to include the expression on voluntary and mutually agreed terms, so-called VMAT (voluntary mutually agreed terms) clause risks undermining essential TRIPS obligations and flexibilities, particularly compulsory licensing mechanisms”.

The proposal was referred to informal consultations.

Venezuela’s Proposal on Empowering Handicraft Artisans through IP

Venezuela's proposal “Empowering Doll-Making Artisans through Intellectual Property”, aimed at harnessing IP tools in support of handicraft artisans attracted wide support from developing country delegations, who viewed it as a mechanism for cultural preservation, rural economic development and the empowerment of marginalised producers.

Venezuela framed the proposal's ambition as follows: “… when IP is at the service of crafters, the future is not a promise but rather a concrete goal to be achieved”.

The US objected to both the scope and coherence of the proposal, arguing that it had conflated IP with traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions issues managed in another WIPO committee. It said the “project lacks clarity about what it actually intends to accomplish” adding that it was “concerned about the project's emphasis on non-IP concepts‚ suggesting this project is really about traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, not Intellectual Property”.

The proposal was also referred to informal consultations.

Chile’s Proposal - Building Capacity on IP and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Visual Arts

Chile framed the problem squarely in development terms: “Increasingly widespread use of AI tools on the one hand opens doors for opportunities, yet at the same time creates challenges for IP rights. These challenges specifically affect independent creators, small producers, designers and MSMEs (micro, small and medium sized enterprises)”.

South Africa on behalf of the Africa Group called on WIPO to prioritise targeted capacity building noting that AI raises “concerns regarding ownership, fair remuneration and the potential misappropriation of cultural expression”.

The Group further called for “special attention‚ to empowering youth, women and small creative enterprises as well as protecting traditional cultural expression from unauthorized use in AI system”.

The Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) coordinated by El Salvador backed the proposal, noting it “responds to emerging needs arising from the increased use of AI in creative processes”.

Mexico in announcing its co-sponsorship said that the “project responds to a true and urgent need; creative industries are already using these tools in their processes. However, they often do this without understanding fully the repercussions in the area of Intellectual Property”.

Iran observed that “independent creators, designers and visual artists in developing countries are already integrating AI tools into their creative process, often without adequate understanding of the IP implications. The gap between the pace of AI adoption and the availability of practical IP guidance is widening”.

Indonesia supported the proposal but stressed it “should remain a practical capacity building initiative and should not prejudge a broader normative discussion on AI and IP”.

The US opposed the project outright. It objected to the timing of the document's publication, less than three weeks before the session, and to the legal instability of the field itself .

The US said, "AI policy in the intersection of AI with copyright and related rights is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of law and policy globally. There are significant differences in approaches across jurisdictions and those approaches remain in flux. Major questions about AI and copyright, including questions about training data, outputs and authorship are being actively litigated and debated in courts and legislatures around the world. It is unclear what guidance or training materials this project would develop when the legal and policy landscape is so unsettled. The United States will not support the project at this time".

The proposal was sent to informal consultations.+