The removal of a trademark for non-use cannot take place before the expiry of a three-year period of uninterrupted non-use, unless the trademark holder has good reason to prevent it. Circumstances beyond the control of the trademark holder, such as import restrictions or other state restrictions, are recognized as valid grounds for non-use. The use of a trademark by another person subject to the control of its owner must be recognized as the use of the trademark for the purpose of maintaining registration (Article 19). As in the main existing intellectual property conventions, the fundamental obligation of each Member State is to grant people in other Member States the treatment of intellectual property protection under the Convention. Section 1.3 specifies who these people are. These persons are referred to as nationals, but include individuals or legal entities who have close ties to other members without necessarily being nationals. The criteria for determining who should therefore benefit from the treatment provided by the agreement are the criteria established for this purpose in WIPO`s major ip agreements, which naturally apply to all WTO members, whether or not they are parties to those agreements. These conventions are the Paris Convention, the Bern Convention, the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, the producers of phonograms and broadcasters (Rome Convention) and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of integrated circuits (IPIC Treaty). Since the TRIPS agreement came into force, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is generally opposed to the WTO, many proponents of trade liberalization also view TRIPS policy as a bad policy. The effects of the concentration of WEALTH of TRIPS (money from people in developing countries for copyright and patent holders in industrialized countries) and the imposition of artificial shortages on citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws are common bases for such criticisms. Other critics have focused on the inability of trips trips to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, a benefit that WTO members achieved prior to the creation of the agreement. The World Bank`s statements indicate that TRIPS have clearly not accelerated investment in low-income countries, whereas they may have done so for middle-income countries.
 As part of TRIPS, long periods of patent validity were examined to determine the excessive slowdown in generic drug entry and competition. In particular, the illegality of preclinical testing or the presentation of samples to be authorized until a patent expires have been accused of encouraging the growth of certain multinationals and not producers in developing countries. Article 7 (Principles) and Article 8 (Goals) are at the forefront of the text of the WTO`s ON-TRIPS agreement, but have been sparsely illustrated in the statement of the dispute resolution body`s (DSB) reasons. This disparity is further accentuated by taking into account three key factors. First, the pioneering step of trips negotiators, which involves including comprehensive statements of intent in the operational text. Second, the strengthening of these provisions in the Doha DECLARATION on TRIPS and Public Health in 2001. Finally, the literal transposition of these provisions into other international ip instruments, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement and WIPO`s development agenda. Taken together, these factors require a more in-depth analysis of the importance and application of Sections 7 and 8.