Both contracts are managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization, an international organization that aims to «i) promote the protection of intellectual property worldwide through cooperation between states and, where appropriate, in cooperation with any other international organization, and (ii) ensure administrative cooperation between trade unions.» These latter objectives are at the heart of this multilateral agreement, which is strictly limited to the borders of intellectual property. WIPO-managed contracts focus exclusively on intellectual property issues, but are not intended to regulate aspects of intellectual property rights that may be trade-related. The third sentence of the above description makes it clear that the United States of America is on board a «policy of division and conquest» whose main objective is to reward countries that are willing to accept their terms for IPR standards and to ignore or reward those that do not. In addition, some analysts are concerned that many free trade agreements contain IPR rules, considered controversial and shady, even in the United States. Others, such as Professor Ruth Okediji, believe that the trend towards more bilateral TRIPS may ultimately lead to IPR rules in free trade agreements becoming a common law, which would make it very difficult for each country (and in particular for those who advance TRIPS plus provisions) to move away from the international interprospective spectrum of IPR rules arising from bilateral agreements. [37] The purpose of this discussion paper is to examine the impact of these free trade agreements, both internationally and domestically, on intellectual property rules, in particular on the discontinuities and trends that cause this relationship (IPR and trade) in developed and underdeveloped countries that are net importers of IP-related products. It also aims to highlight the strategic approaches taken by different countries to address this problematic issue [3]. In the final part, it states that, at present, it is unlikely that the economic impact of this higher standard on intellectual property can be assessed, but argues that free trade agreements undermine and continue to weaken the sovereignty of net importing countries of IP-related goods and, ultimately, this could have implications for several areas. that are relevant to the common good of these nation-states. such as public health, education, Aboriginal culture, among others.

The above trend is dangerous in that it could hinder the long-term flow of the global trading regime. Free trade concerns goods and services that move without barriers across borders, but intellectual property law, through its complex rules on parallel imports, exhaustion of rights and doctrines of infringement, allows ip rights holders to impede the exchange of goods rather than facilitate their global movement. A good example of this trend is Europe`s desire to increase its monopoly on other words which it considers geographical indications, but which have long been used internationally by other countries such as feta, roasted sausage, Parmesan and brood. [41] This position confirms that intellectual property rights are being manipulated to the point of creating new forms of protectionism under the complex veil of intellectual property law. Article 4 of the ON TRIPS agreement introduces a new element into the international IP system, called the Most Favorable Clause (MFN). Under this provision, nationals of all WTO members must enjoy all benefits, benefits, privileges or immunities granted bilaterally to nationals of another country (including those who are not wto members).