Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The borderless architecture of the internet places sustained pressure on an intellectual property (IP) system built on territorial rights. This article examines how far Bangladesh’s recently overhauled IP statutes, namely the Copyright Act 2023, the Patent Act 2023, the Industrial Designs Act 2023 and the Trademarks Act 2009, read together with its cyber-specific legislation, protect IP in cyberspace, and how closely they align with the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Internet Treaties. Methods: The article combines doctrinal and comparative analysis with an exploratory stakeholder survey (n = 20). Results: The analysis identifies five structural deficits: (i) the absence of a procedurally detailed notice-and-takedown and intermediary-liability regime calibrated to IP; (ii) uncertainty over the treatment of user-generated content, software and AI-assisted outputs; (iii) a trademark regime that does not expressly accommodate non-traditional marks and lacks a dedicated domain-name dispute policy; (iv) Bangladesh’s non-accession to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; and (v) limited enforcement capacity and low rights awareness. The survey, while not generalizable, corroborates these findings: two-thirds of respondents holding digital IP reported at least one infringement, and 18 of 20 favored stronger protection. Conclusions: Situating these findings within Bangladesh’s scheduled graduation from least-developed-country status, which will end its general TRIPS transition period, the article proposes a calibrated reform agenda that strengthens enforcement and legal certainty without importing maximalist standards ill-suited to a developing digital economy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Research et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: