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

Advertisement


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.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • 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 >


    Counterfeit Medicines At WHO: Off Board’s Agenda, Still On Secretariat’s

    Published on 11 December 2009 @ 11:01 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The issue of counterfeit and substandard medicines is again not on the agenda of the World Health Organization Executive Board meeting in January, though sources say member states are being consulted about the issue by the secretariat.

    At the Executive Board meeting in January 2009, a report on counterfeit medicines was rejected due to objections over the use of the term “counterfeit,” and the WHO director general told member states that she would prepare an updated report taking into account their concerns.

    Counterfeit is a term of art under the World Trade Organization, where it is defined as a trademark violation. Several developing countries have objected to the use of the term in a health context, arguing instead that terms such as “falsified” or “substandard” medicines should be used in order to focus the debate more widely on public health issues, rather than use a term that could be misconstrued as related to intellectual property rights instead.

    There is a further concern that counterfeit drugs will be confused with generic drugs, a concern which was exacerbated by several cases that came to light in 2009 of legal generic drug shipments from India being delayed in European ports on accusations of intellectual property rights violations.

    The secretariat is still “insisting” on using the terminology, and is currently undertaking consultations with member states on how to handle the counterfeit drug issue, a Geneva-based diplomat said.

    The WHO secretariat told Intellectual Property Watch that the term has been used in several resolutions of WHO’s annual decision-making World Health Assembly, as well as in WHO guidelines, dating back to “some time ago” and that therefore a permanent change in its use would “require a solid basis.”

    The WHO is asking governments to provide definitions of “counterfeit” pulled from their national laws, several sources told Intellectual Property Watch. The deadline for these submissions is 20 December, the WHO secretariat told Intellectual Property Watch. The secretariat is preparing a “baseline/situation analysis” for a discussion on counterfeits that will be held at the World Health Assembly in May 2010.

    A ‘frequently asked questions’ document on the WHO website, dated October 2009, says counterfeits are “defined differently in different countries.” The document is available here [pdf].

    It also quotes a WHO-backed initiative, the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) task force, which defines a counterfeit medicine as “one that is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to identity and/or source,” and that can include incorrect, inactive, or insufficient ingredients. The ongoing consultations with member states have also invited comments on the IMPACT document, the secretariat said.

    A “counterfeits fact sheet” document [pdf], dated July 2009 and appearing on the WHO website. may explain the use of this terminology. It claims “counterfeit medicines are more dangerous than substandard medicines,” even though they “may be less frequent.” This is because “their content can be dangerous (if, for example, they contain toxic materials) or lacking (as in the absence of active ingredient),” the document says.

    “Even a single case of a counterfeit medicine is unacceptable since it indicates that the pharmaceutical supply system in which it was detected is vulnerable. Worse, it undermines the credibility of national health and enforcement authorities,” the fact sheet adds.

    A Global Mechanism for Combating Counterfeit

    A “global mechanism similar to the one used to control narcotic drugs should be created to control trade in counterfeit medicines,” the October document states, adding that counterfeit drugs affect the general public as well as “the sick and innocent consumers” and “deserve more attention.”

    There are several measures governments must take domestically to combat counterfeit medicines, it adds. Among these actions are strengthening national drug regulatory authorities, including their cooperation with national law enforcement agencies such as “police, customs, and the judiciary.”

    Internationally, information should be shared between “regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical manufacturers, national law enforcement officers, [and] international organisations such WHO, Interpol, World Custom Organization.” This cooperation can be aided, it adds, by “a common definition of counterfeit medicines,” which is perhaps what the current member state consultation is trying to achieve.

    Nationally, the document says, medicines should have defined points of entry and their importation should be controlled “by issuing import permits and inspecting consignments at points of entry as necessary.” The market should be monitored to prevent both counterfeit and substandard medicines from getting to consumers, it adds.

    History

    The issue first came up in January 2009 in response to a report by IMPACT, which drew criticism from developing countries as its main participants were developed nations and pharmaceutical industry representatives.

    It was decided at the time that the WHO secretariat would do further reporting on the issue, taking into account governments’ concerns, and report back at the World Health Assembly in May 2009 (IPW, WHO, 27 January 2009). However, the WHA was truncated so that state health representatives could go home and manage fears about a breaking H1N1 (or, swine flu) pandemic, and counterfeit medicines were left off the agenda.

    But they came up anyway, as a line appeared in the WHO’s medium-term strategic plan detailing expected activities for the years 2008 through 2013 about helping members to implement the IMPACT report. Governments – notably Brazil, India, Suriname, and Thailand – objected as the counterfeit/IMPACT issue had not yet been resolved (IPW, WHO, 23 May 2009).

    “If member states decide” that the problem should be called ‘substandard’ drugs, then “I have no problem,” WHO Director General Margaret Chan told Intellectual Property Watch in May, adding “WHO will not do the work of WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] or the WTO [World Trade Organization]” by becoming involved in IP.

    The WHO secretariat told Intellectual Property Watch last week that the counterfeit issue will be handled at the 2010 World Health Assembly.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@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.