SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Japan Proposes New IP Enforcement Treaty

    Published on 15 November 2005 @ 2:18 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Lyon, France–Japan has proposed an international treaty to combat worldwide counterfeiting and piracy, complementing the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

    The proposal came at a 14-15 November conference near Interpol headquarters in Lyon, France, where the TRIPS agreement was characterised by some participants as a minimal pact lacking sufficient “teeth” for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

    While the TRIPS agreement focuses on imports of pirated products, the proposed treaty, dubbed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Counterfeits and Pirated Goods, would focus on the import, export and transshipment of illegal goods, said Hisamitsu Arai, secretary general of the intellectual property strategy headquarters cabinet secretariat in Tokyo.

    Arai presented the treaty at the second “Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy,” and asked participants to support the idea. “Let us fight together,” Arai said.

    Arai told Intellectual Property Watch that he had chosen this forum as Japan foresees that Interpol or the World Customs Organisation (WCO), two of the conference organisers, could be in charge of the treaty.

    Arai said that this was not a unique treaty in terms of going beyond import only. “We are number four,” he said, referring to the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (green house gases), and the Basel Convention to combat hazardous industrial waste. The new treaty would be “based on the successful model of other treaties,” Arai said.

    He said that the treaty would introduce legal obligations to ensure countermeasures against piracy were taken at the borders of the exporting countries. It would also aim to deter counterfeits and pirated goods on the Internet, Arai said.

    Japan has also outlined the implementation procedures for its proposal. Enforcement agencies would co-operate and share “process of measures” data, meaning their respective processes of seizures, confiscation and destruction and removal of manufacturing equipment.

    Reports would be published on progress on customs seizures, arrests and criminal procedures, Arai said, adding that the treaty would enable the internal legal system to “confiscate proceeds of intellectual property crimes” and “extradite criminals of IP crimes.”

    Early Reaction Mixed

    Many of the participants said it was too early to comment on the potential of the treaty proposed by Japan, while others questioned it. Lawrence S. P. Wong, deputy commissioner of Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, told Intellectual Property Watch that they already do everything that is proposed in the treaty. He said that “action is much more important” than words.

    Another developing country delegate supported the Japanese proposal, saying it would “give more teeth” to the fight against counterfeits and piracy. He said there are customs problems with the TRIPS agreement as rights holders are given little time to react upon seizure of fake goods, and said that it should be revised.

    A Brazilian lawyer said he supports an international treaty for counterfeits but that it should be regulated by the WTO.

    Michel Danet, secretary general of the WCO, predicted there would be a major problem launching an international counterfeit treaty as neither the WTO, nor the United Nations, nor the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development would be the preferred forum.

    Need For TRIPS Renegotiation Debated

    The new treaty was discussed in the context of the TRIPS agreement, which was criticised for being inefficient. In the opening plenary, Danet said that TRIPS was “totally useless” and he urged governments to review whether it needed to be re-negotiated.

    Rita Hayes, deputy director general of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), said it was up to the governments to make sure that the agreements were working through enforcement.

    Later, however, Danet told Intellectual Property Watch that he had not meant to over-simplify the TRIPS issue, but noted that TRIPS was not the right tool for fighting the overall problem of counterfeits. It was a “minimum agreement” and not sufficient as it only focused on import.

    Guy Sebban, secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), said that the ICC members did not want to restart the TRIPS agreement negotiations from scratch but fully supported the argument that the WTO instrument is not strong enough. A “better legal framework” with enforcement measures complementing TRIPS is needed, he said.

    US Cool To Japanese Proposal

    Arai said that the Japanese treaty idea had first been introduced at the Group of Eight industrialized nations meeting earlier this year by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, but that this was the first official presentation.

    Chris Israel, coordinator for international intellectual property enforcement in the US Department of Commerce, said in an interview that Japan had met with the United States a number of times, including twice in September, to discuss the treaty, and it was his understanding that Japan had been discussing it with the European Union as well.

    “We applaud the energy that Japan brings to this issue,” Israel said. However, the United States is more focused on implementation of anti-counterfeiting measures “right now,” targeting “action and results,” Israel said.

    Why Japan?

    Arai said that this idea came from Japan as the country is “very neutral about counterfeits,” in terms of the interests of the industry versus the consumers. He also noted that while TRIPS focuses on producers, this treaty would act in the interest of consumers of the world who are dying from counterfeit medicines. “I am interested in the safety and security of consumers,” Arai said.

    Doug Clark, partner of the international law firm Lovells in Shanghai, said that “Japan has become obsessed with IP in the last three to four years,” noting that this was because it had become a more sophisticated economy. It does not only rely solely on manufacturing, but also on intellectual property, he said.

    The conference in Lyon was organised by the WCO, Interpol, WIPO, Global Business Leaders Alliance Against Counterfeiting, the International Trademark Association and the ICC.

    Categories: English, WTO/TRIPS

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.