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.

Advertisement


Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

To What Extent Can Global IP Rules Be Responsive To Public Interest Demands? The Case Of The Treaty For The Visually Impaired

To what extent can global intellectual property rules address in an effective manner the needs of the most vulnerable members of society? This is the key question with which member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are faced as they prepare to meet next week for a diplomatic conference, in Marrakesh, that should result in the adoption of a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities.


Interview With Tanja Rajić: The Impact Of EU Enlargement On Trademark Practice In Croatia

Ten years after applying for membership, Croatia is finally joining the European Union on 1 July 2013. Tanja Rajić, senior associate at PETOSEVIC, explains how six years of accession negotiations and the adoption of the acquis communautaire have affected intellectual property protection in Croatia and prepared it for becoming a member state.





Latest Comments
  • We in India should not change our policy, speciall... »
  • We in India should not change our policy, speciall... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >


    Clash Over World Customs Organization Efforts On IP Enforcement

    Published on 25 April 2008 @ 2:35 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By David Cronin for Intellectual Property Watch
    BRUSSELS – Developing countries this week clashed with senior officials in the World Customs Organisation over an initiative designed to ensure that intellectual property rights are upheld at border posts, according to participants.

    Delegates to the 172-country WCO met in its Brussels headquarters on 24-25 April to prepare international guidelines for applying IP protection in customs.

    During the discussions WCO Secretary-General Michel Danet argued that customs authorities should pay greater heed to IP issues because they have been identified as a priority by leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) top industrialised countries over the past few years, the participants said.

    His comments – made to the WCO’s SECURE (Standards to be Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement) working group – drew an angry response from some representatives of developing countries.

    “This is very serious,” said a developing country source, who attended the SECURE meeting. “He was basically saying that whatever those eight countries have decided, the others have to follow and that countries who are not happy could leave the organisation. That is not something you would expect from the secretary-general.”

    Some developing countries have taken issue with how IP issues have been placed on the WCO’s agenda. In particular, they are perturbed by arguments put forward by WCO officials that existing international rules on intellectual property – such as the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement – are not sufficient to meet the challenges faced by customs officers.

    The developing countries suggest that the WCO lacks a mandate to devise rules that go beyond those contained in TRIPS, the implementation of which is overseen by the Geneva-based WTO. TRIPS does not require customs authorities to seize goods that may contain components which breach a patent, for example.

    But a source close to Danet said that the work being undertaken by SECURE is primarily designed to benefit developing countries.

    “Developing countries know that they must protect intellectual property rights but they don’t have the capacity to do so,” the source said. “SECURE is about capacity building. Its objective is to strengthen customs administrations and border controls so that they are able to fight counterfeiting and piracy.”

    According to the source, the guidelines being devised by SECURE will be a “kind of vehicle” for applying IP rules to customs, rather than a binding accord. “SECURE doesn’t compete with TRIPS,” he added.

    This week’s SECURE meeting was part of preparatory work for the annual meeting of WCO’s governing body or council in June. Staff at WCO are hoping that the council will endorse a model law dealing with IP issues.

    In a submission to this week’s meeting, China emphasised that any standards set by the WCO must be voluntary.

    Ecuador, meanwhile, proposed that any standards on IP enforcement should be agreed from a socio-economic perspective. It also recommended that any eventual guidelines approved at WCO level should be complementary to the new Development Agenda of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). That agenda stems from a resolution passed by WIPO’s general assembly in 2004, undertaking to systematically assess the impact that IP policies and measures have on developing countries in such areas as technological innovation, access to knowledge and human health. Recommendations agreed at the 2007 General Assembly are in the implementation process this year.

    A separate submission to SECURE from Brazil urged that the model law should contain provisions relating to environmental protection. A Brazilian paper circulated to SECURE delegates recommends that customs administrations should have the “legal authority to act” so that patented seeds or other biological resources may be impounded in cases where the “competent authorities” believe that the patents in question were granted in a way that contravenes laws on biodiversity.

    Brazil has been at the forefront of efforts to develop international rules covering access to genetic resources and to prevent the loss of endangered varieties of flora and fauna. Its paper says there is “a growing, widespread concern with cases of misappropriation” of biological resources and traditional knowledge by the granting of patents to firms involved in biotechnology and related activities.

    A new report by the South Centre, which undertakes research and analysis for 50 developing countries, describes the work being carried out by the WCO on IP standards as “alarming.”

    According to the report, standards developed by the WCO may be wider than the provisions in the TRIPS agreement, without there being any “prior assessment of their potential impact.” It suggests that customs authorities in developing countries should not be hurried into having to take greater responsibility for IP enforcement, given that the resources at their disposal are limited.

    Viviana Munoz Tellez, the report’s author, said it would be “especially dangerous” for developing countries to have to assume new responsibilities for enforcing IP rights, considering that a “highly complex and technical process” is often required to prove that a patent has been infringed. Giving customs a role greater than its core responsibility of revenue collection would “far extend its competence and abilities,” the report adds.

    Vera Franz, a specialist on IP issues with the Open Society Institute, a foundation set up by the financier George Soros, said that the WCO should be more transparent about its activities. Although some industry representatives have been involved in SECURE, non-governmental organisations complain that they have not been consulted.

    “We feel that an important part of society is missing in these discussions,” Franz explained. “The fact that we (non-governmental organisations) are not in the room is a concern to us. And if we are not allowed in the room, there should at least be process for how we can participate.”

    Maria Assimakopoulou, the European Commission’s spokeswoman on customs, said that her institution is taking part in SECURE in the hope that any guidelines it drafts comply with European Union law.

    She pointed out that legislation on customs applying within the 27-country EU already “goes far beyond” the provisions of TRIPS. The aim of SECURE, she said, is to provide “uniform protection” of IP rights.

    David Cronin may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 107.21.156.140