IP enforcement needs a rehaul | Photo Credit: WANAN YOSSINGKUM

The decision by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to initiate a Section 301 investigation into Vietnam’s intellectual property protection and enforcement framework has reignited debates on the role of intellectual property in international trade relations. Vietnam was identified as a “Priority Foreign Country” in the 2026 Special 301 Report due to what the United States described as persistent concerns regarding IP protection and enforcement.

Notably, India continues to remain on the USTR’s Priority Watch List, alongside several other developing economies, reflecting long-standing concerns raised by the United States regarding aspects of intellectual property protection and enforcement. The continued placement of developing countries on such lists raises important questions regarding the benchmarks used to evaluate IP compliance and the broader implications for trade policy.

Need for consistency

While concerns relating to piracy, counterfeiting, and infringement are legitimate, the current developments invite a broader discussion on whether global IP enforcement standards are being applied consistently across developed and developing countries.

The recent adoption of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge marks an important step towards addressing concerns relating to the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The treaty seeks to enhance transparency in patent systems by introducing disclosure requirements concerning the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

This raises a critical question: if developing countries can be subjected to investigations and trade measures for perceived inadequacies in IP enforcement, should there also be mechanisms to examine whether developed countries adequately prevent the misappropriation of traditional knowledge, genetic resources and indigenous innovations?

India’s role

For decades, countries such as India have highlighted concerns relating to biopiracy and the commercial utilisation of biological resources and traditional knowledge without adequate acknowledgement, prior informed consent or equitable benefit-sharing. Although international recognition of these concerns has grown, questions remain regarding the accountability of research institutions, corporations and innovation ecosystems in developed countries when inventions are derived from resources and knowledge originating in biodiversity-rich developing nations.

The broader challenge for the international intellectual property regime is to ensure that enforcement is not viewed solely through the lens of protecting private intellectual property rights. A balanced system must also address fairness, transparency, biodiversity conservation, benefit-sharing and the protection of community-held knowledge systems.

Vietnam case

The Vietnam investigation therefore presents an opportunity to revisit a fundamental question for global trade governance: should intellectual property enforcement focus exclusively on piracy and infringement in developing countries, or should it also apply equal scrutiny to the potential misappropriation of traditional knowledge and genetic resources, regardless of where such activities occur?

As the international community moves towards implementing the new WIPO treaty, the debate may no longer be about stronger intellectual property protection alone, but about achieving a more equitable intellectual property order.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Boyd Tandon MCC Business School, Madras Christian College, Chennai

Published on June 21, 2026