Trips Agreement Hindi
1. Members agree to enter into negotiations aimed at strengthening the protection of individual geographical indications referred to in Article 23. Paragraphs 4 to 8 may not be used by a Member to refuse to conduct negotiations or conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements. In the context of these negotiations, Members are prepared to consider the continued applicability of these provisions to individual geographical indications the use of which has been the subject of such negotiations. The 2002 Doha Declaration reaffirmed that the TRIPS Agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary measures to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as compulsory licensing, are almost impossible to enforce. Less developed countries, in particular, cited their young domestic manufacturing and technology industries as evidence of the imprecision of the policy. Despite the Doha Declaration, in recent years many developing countries have been under pressure to introduce or apply even stricter or more restrictive conditions in their patent laws than required by the TRIPS Agreement, known as the "TRIPS Plus" provisions. Countries are under no obligation under international law, but many, such as Brazil, China or Central American countries, have had no choice but to take them up in trade agreements with the United States or the European Union. These have disastrous effects on access to medicines. Unlike other intellectual property agreements, TRIPS has an effective enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. In addition to the basic intellectual property standards established by the TRIPS Agreement, many nations have engaged in bilateral agreements to introduce a higher level of protection.
This collection of standards, known as TRIPS+ or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms.  The general objectives of these agreements are as follows: since the entry into force of TRIPS, it has been the subject of criticism from developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organisations. While some of this criticism is directed at the WTO in general, many proponents of trade liberalization also see TRIPS as bad policy. The wealth concentration effects of TRIPS (the movement of money from people in developing countries to copyright and patent holders in developed countries) and the imposition of artificial shortages on citizens of countries that would otherwise have weaker intellectual property laws are common bases for such criticism. Other criticisms focused on TRIPS` failure to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, an advantage advanced by WTO members before the agreement was created. World Bank statements indicate that TRIPS has not been able to tangibly accelerate investment in low-income countries, although this has been done for middle-income countries.  The long periods of validity of patents under TRIPS have been examined to indicate that they excessively slow down market entry for generic drug substitutes and competition in the market. In particular, the illegality of preclinical studies or the filing of samples for approval until the expiry of a patent have been held responsible for the growth of a small number of multinational companies and not producers in developing countries. . . .