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
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • 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 >


    WIPO Buzzing With Possible Names For Top Cabinet Posts

    Published on 5 May 2009 @ 3:24 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Behind the day-to-day policy and technical work at the World Intellectual Property Organization, member governments’ lobbying of new Director General Francis Gurry to obtain top positions for national officials at WIPO has been intensive in recent weeks and is near conclusion, according to sources. Among the pack of possible names is a recent former director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, according to sources.

    [Editor's update: N.N. Prasad, Joint Secretary at India's Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce, has been chosen as the Chef de Cabinet (chief of staff) to the WIPO director general, according to Indian sources. This was first reported in the SpicyIP blog.]

    Any government may put forward a name, and upwards of nearly 20 candidates’ names are said to have been in consideration for four posts of deputy director general – who are second only to Gurry – or three assistant director general spots. Positions are usually for six years, though there is a precedent for splitting them into two three-year terms in order to resolve political conflicts.

    This time, the full terms for DDGs and ADGs may only be 5 years, a source said, as Gurry will already be one year into his six-year appointment when they come on board due to unusual circumstances at WIPO last year.

    There are four deputy director general positions to be filled. Under the pre-existing WIPO structure these included: patents, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, and global IP issues (left open by Gurry, of Australia), copyright and enforcement (Michael Keplinger, United States), administrative matters (Philippe Petit of France, who is completing his term despite illness), and economic development (Narendra Sabharwal of India).

    It was noted the last time, in 2006, that three out of four of the DDG positions came from a single regional group – Group B of developed countries (Australia, France, United States). There were some calls for better representation of the membership (IPW, WIPO, 1 June 2006). It should be noted that WIPO also has not yet named a chief economist or top official for global issues.

    Gurry and Petit had been recommended by previous Director General Kamil Idris, who left one year early in 2008 after a lack of confidence among members arising from doubts about his employment record. Keplinger served three years after replacing another American, Rita Hayes, in 2006. Sabharwal completed the second half of the term started by Geoffrey Yu of Singapore, as pre-arranged.

    The assistant directors general (ADGs) completing their terms this year are from China (Wang Binying), Nigeria (Geoffrey Onyeama), and Uruguay (Ernesto Rubio). All three appear to be seeking to continue or elevate their positions in WIPO, according to sources.

    Rubio has served two terms. Wang Binying was given a newly created position in 2006, giving China its highest post in WIPO since joining in 1980. Onyeama was named in 2005 to fill a post vacated by Tanzanian Khamis Suedi, who resigned after being investigated for financial concerns related to an earlier renovation of a WIPO office building.

    Gurry, who took office last October, is expected any day now to send his recommendations to the 83-member Coordination Committee, the member state executive body. The committee will then meet in June to decide on his recommendations and pass them on to the September assemblies for final approval of the full 184 members. [Correction: the appointments become final with Coordination Committee approval, according to WIPO sources.] The new officials would take office by the end of the year.

    Gurry reportedly has been choosing from among about 17 names of senior officials, several already employed within WIPO, whose names have been put forward by their governments. There is a loose emphasis on geographic representation in the selection process.

    A Crowded Stage

    Countries of origin of possible candidates may include, according to sources: Argentina, Barbados, Cameroon, China, Croatia, Germany, Ghana, Japan, Macedonia, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, United States, and Uruguay.

    Note that many of these names could not be confirmed by press time, and this list may be non-exhaustive.

    The United States is said to be considering putting forward Q. Todd Dickinson as the US candidate for deputy director general. He was formerly undersecretary of Commerce and director of the US Patent and Trademark Office in President Clinton’s second term.

    The US was said to have been considering more than one possible candidate, such as Matthew Bryan, director of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) legal division sector of the PCT and Patents, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, and Global Intellectual Property Issues.

    Other US names said to be in consideration include: Richard Wilder, associate general counsel for IP policy at Microsoft, a former director of the WIPO Global IP Issues Division; Jon Santamauro, an attorney at Sidley Austin who was the lead US delegate on IP issues in Geneva; and Jim Pooley, a partner at Morrison and Foerster law firm who is also said to be a candidate for USPTO director.

    [Editor's update: US industry sources say Pooley has been selected for backing by the US government for the DDG patent role, which signals he was not chosen for the USPTO director position. This has yet to be confirmed with official sources.]

    From the Latin American and Caribbean region, a potential nominee is Barbados Ambassador Trevor Clarke, chair of the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property. Ernesto Rubio, head of trademarks at WIPO, is another possible candidate from the Latin America and the Caribbean region, sources said. A third potential Latin American candidate is Marcelo di Pietro Peralta of Argentina, who is a senior advisor in the Office of the Director General at WIPO.

    From Africa, there at least three, sources said, all from within WIPO: Onyeama of Nigeria, a current ADG; Edward Kwakwa of Ghana, who is WIPO general counsel; and Herman Ntchatcho of Cameroon, senior director of the technical assistance and capacity building bureau for Africa.

    The names appear to include a few who competed with Gurry in last year’s election for director general. According to a source this may include Yoshiyuki Takagi of Japan, executive director of the WIPO Global IP Infrastructure Department and Boris Simonov of Russia, director general of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent).

    Gurry’s closest competitor in last year’s election, Jose Graça Aranha of Brazil (who lost by one vote), has moved out of the WIPO headquarters in Geneva to head the WIPO Latin America office based in Rio de Janeiro.

    Joining Japan and the United States from the non-geographic Group B of developed countries is Germany, which has put forward former WIPO official Johannes Wichard.

    From Asia, the Philippines has put forward a candidate for deputy director general, Adrian Cristobal, director general of the WIPO office in the Philippines with the rank of undersecretary. Indonesia was considering a potential candidate but has decided against it, sources said.

    China, its own regional group at WIPO, may be seeking to extend Wang Binying, a source said.

    WIPO also has regional groups representing central and eastern Europe. The Eastern European group is headed by Russia. Two countries from the Central European and Baltic States group are said to be putting forth candidates: Georgi Avramchev, the Ambassador of Macedonia to the United Nations and World Trade Organization, and Zeljko Topić, director of the IP office of Croatia.

    The central European group sees itself as more western European-leaning in IP and is trying to move faster than some of its eastern neighbours to adopt European-style IP policies, Avramchev told Intellectual Property Watch. Currently, the group has only one representative in senior WIPO management, Michel Svantner of the Slovak Republic, according to a regional source. Bojan Pretnar of Slovenia, who was a candidate in the WIPO director general election last year, was expected to retire this year.

    The 17-member central European group consists of: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.

    Summary of existing officials completing terms:

    Philippe Petit (DDG) – general affairs and administration sector
    Francis Gurry (DDG) – Patent Cooperation Treaty, arbitration and mediation centre and global intellectual property issues
    Narendra Sabharwal (DDG) – economic development sector
    Michael Keplinger (DDG) – copyright and related rights

    Ernesto Rubio (ADG) – sector of trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications
    Geoffrey Onyeama (ADG) – coordination office for external relations and industry relations
    Wang Binying (ADG) – office of administrative support services, security matters and general assembly affairs.

    William New may be reached at wnew@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.