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 >


    WTO Ends Ministerial With No Agreements, Modest Treatment Of IP

    Published on 2 December 2009 @ 10:39 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Trade Organization today wrapped up its first ministerial meeting in four years with no decisions or breakthroughs (as expected) but an informal agreement to consider by March whether members can complete the longstanding round of negotiations in 2010. Meanwhile, intellectual property issues played a tangential role in ministers’ discussions, but made several notable appearances.

    In response to the global economic crisis, governments plan only to conduct a “stock-taking exercise” of negotiating positions by March, but it is unclear what the fate of the round will be if it is determined at that time they cannot finish in 2010. Ministers agreed that the next ministerial meeting should be at the end of 2011, but did not say where it would be held.

    The closing chair’s statement offered a list of issues countries said still matter to them. And a number of delegates mentioned the importance of the United States showing leadership in the coming months.

    Ministers took two minor actions, extending a moratorium on “non-violation and situation” complaints under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and extending a moratorium on e-commerce taxes.

    WTO rules allow complaints about government measures or other situations that do not technically violate WTO agreements, but result in frustrated expected benefits of another member. WTO members have not been able to agree to allow this option under TRIPS, which deals with intangible goods and services.

    An emerging IP-related issue in the WTO context is that of patents on environmental technologies needed to address climate change. Developed countries generally appeared to take the view that addressing the problem from a trade standpoint means opening markets to their exports, which assumes they will have patented technologies to sell. Some developing countries have shown concern about being restricted from using TRIPS flexibilities allowing the issuance of compulsory licences to obtain needed goods and services.

    In global climate talks, nations have been at loggerheads over patents on clean technologies and the perceived need for compulsory licenses to obtain the necessary technologies.

    It was noted by one participant that patents are not usually filed in least-developed countries anyway, leaving technologies from elsewhere open to the public domain and those poorest countries free to use them.

    Generic Drug Seizures “Not TRIPS-Plus, But TRIPS-Illegal”

    Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma in a press conference today spoke sharply against what he said has been a “deliberate and devious campaign by vested interests to confuse about Indian generics.”

    Sharma said European countries are not in conformity with the TRIPS agreement because they have stopped legal shipments of Indian products passing through to developing countries. It’s not TRIPS-plus but TRIPS-illegal,” he said.

    The shipments legitimate generic medicines detained in 2008 and early 2009 were destined for countries that critically need them, he said, adding, “Indian generics have made enormous contributions to saving lives.”

    Multinational companies have put a stranglehold on shipments in order to stifle competition, as India is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical producers, including 20 percent of the world’s generics. The reasons for stopping the shipments (allegedly suspected counterfeits) are “totally unrelated.”

    But he said India and the recipient countries like Brazil have been assured by European Union that they will remedy this, “so we will not have to take an action to safeguard our industry, which is one of the largest in world.” Sharma said the issue was triggered in South Africa in the 1990s and is continuing.

    But India did not raise the generics shipment issue in bilateral meetings, he said.

    Other IP Issues

    Other intellectual property issues also came up during the WTO ministerial, though they were not in the mainstream discussions. The issues are a mandated register of geographical indications on wines and spirits, and the extension of the high level protection on wines and spirits to other products. In addition, there has been a push in recent years to amend the TRIPS agreement, as part of putting it in line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), by requiring the disclosure of origin of genetic material in patent applications.

    Sharma raised the CBD topic in his opening statement to the plenary, listing it with a series of other “major issues” like agricultural subsidies that he said, “need to be dealt with sympathetically as they have a major bearing on the development outcome of the round.”

    Norway may have been the only developed country to mention the CBD issue, saying that the interests of developing countries need to be considered, including CBD.

    The European Union mentioned in the working session that GIs would have to be part of any outcome, according to one source. Italy in its opening plenary statement highlighted the importance of the GI issue.

    Morocco said in its opening plenary statement that GI protection is one of three critical issues, the other two being fisheries and cotton.

    South-South Trade System Deal Outside WTO

    Leading developing countries today announced a ministerial-level decision to “vastly expand” the coverage of trade under special preferences between developing countries. The announcement was received by some as a poke at the lack of progress at the higher profile World Trade Organization ministerial taking place across the United Nations plaza.

    The decision on modalities under the Global System of Trade Preferences for cutting tariffs on trade between their countries will lead to reductions between 20 percent and 70 percent. It also puts the negotiations on track for completion in 2010, according to Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which is assisting with the talks.

    “The ministerial declaration you just adopted is a major milestone in the history of the GSTP,” he said. “The decision on modalities that you adopted today is unprecedented.” Supachai is also a former WTO director general.

    The negotiations are referred to as the Sao Paulo round, launched in 2004 at the sixth quadrennial conference of UNCTAD held in Sao Paulo, Brazil. There are 43 member states in the GSTP, with 22 participating in the Sao Paulo round, according to an UNCTAD press release. The 2 December ministerial was held at UNCTAD, in parallel to the WTO ministerial.

    In addition, on 30 November, ministers from India, the Southern African Customs Union and the Southern Cone Common Market (Mercosur) held a landmark meeting as well, they said.

    US Trade Representative Ron Kirk told a closing press briefing that he would like to bring a favourable trade deal back to the US Congress before asking for renewal of presidential trade-negotiating authority, which has expired. The US delegation included staff from several House and Senate committees, he noted.

    WTO Ministerial: Promises, Commitments, But…?

    Speeches to the WTO plenary largely called for holding protectionism in check and re-commitment to completion of the Doha Round of negotiations started in 2001, with numerous calls from developing countries for rich countries to deliver on past promises to boost aid. Rich countries, meanwhile, peppered the conference with promises of more aid and capacity building, arguing that they have made an impact already. France, for instance, said it would give a “sharp increase” in aid for capacity building.

    Numerous developing country speakers insisted that the outcome must truly benefit developing and least-developed countries. Several have targeted developed country subsidies on cotton and other agriculture products as seriously distorting trade. A number questioned whether they have gained the expected benefits from joining the WTO, but all restated their commitment to the organisation.

    The representative from Lesotho told the plenary session, “There is hardly any policy space left” because of the extreme difficulties in least developed countries who are falling so far behind.

    Developed countries, the WTO, and the International Trade Centre have promoted “aid for trade” programmes, including the Enhanced Integrated Framework initiative for capacity building in least developed countries more accessions of developing countries, and the benefits of opening markets.

    The Czech Republic in its plenary statement said a strategy is needed to think about how the trading system will look in the future, and it needs to be fitted to “new times, new trade-related areas of economy.” The WTO will need to change, the Czech speaker said, including in governance.

    Ministers also signaled that the evergrowing number of bilateral and regional trade agreements “is an issue.”

    Non-governmental groups inside the meeting hall at the end formed a large circle and sang songs bidding what they hoped was a final farewell to the Doha Round, which they blame for numerous economic woes and imbalances in poor countries.

    But in the closing plenary and press conferences, there was little sign of a taste for change within the WTO or the trading system.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Tjahjokartiko Gondokusumo says:

      Naturally, ministerial agreements will not produce any profile of “Public and Private Partnerships”. Indonesian Planners are trying to convince this Infrastructure Asia 2010 (http://www.infrastructureasia.com/) to be World Infrastructure Forum.


    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 67.202.9.192