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 >


    Proposals At WHO Would Boost Drug Safety, Replace Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce

    Published on 18 May 2010 @ 11:28 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Discussion at the annual World Health Assembly on counterfeit medicines may prove lively as stakeholders continue to raise concerns that the term “counterfeit” will confuse protecting patients from unsafe drugs with protecting trademarks from infringement. And an industry-led event in the lead-up to the WHA said counterfeit medicines pose great risks and will require a coordinated international response. [Updated]

    Three draft resolutions have so far been tabled for the discussion, that now appears to be scheduled for Wednesday afternoon [updated Wednesday morning]. These is a Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) proposal for an intergovernmental working group to discuss the issue of “falsified” drugs, and a proposal from India and Thailand on measures to ensure access to safe, effective, quality medicines. These proposals are available here [pdf, UNSASUR] and here [pdf, India and Thailand]. The UNASUR proposal was submitted in Spanish, and proponents say the word for falsification was incorrectly translated as “counterfeit”; a corrected version using the word “falsification” instead is being prepared.

    [ Update: A new document signed by 40 African countries on counterfeit medical products is available as of 19 May. The draft resolution cites a concern that counterfeit medicines "continue to move in international commerce, representing a major threat to public health, especially in the poorer areas of developing countries," and asks that they remain an integral part of WHO standard-setting for quality, safety and efficacy. It also asks that WHO help governments implement programmes against counterfeit medicines and aid in detecting cases and disseminating information.

    "The primary focus of combating" counterfeits is the protection of public health, it adds. It encourages states ensure drugs meet regulatory standards, assist in finding and prosecuting cases of counterfeit products, and promote awareness of the dangers of acquiring drugs from unauthorised places "including internet sites." Member states are meeting on these issues during the day. ]

    Meanwhile, French pharmaceutical association les enterprises du médicament (Leem) in cooperation with the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie held 16 May a briefing on counterfeit medicines, with the health ministers from several other francophone African countries were also in attendance.

    At it, a representative of the WHO gave the organisation’s position on the delaying of generic medicines in transit through the European Union, and presented initial results of a WHO survey on national use of the term “counterfeit.”

    New Proposals On Drug Safety

    A new intergovernmental working group should be established to “consider and implement cooperation at the regional and subregional levels and between countries, with a view to preventing and controlling falsified medical products from a public-health perspective,” says the resolution of UNASUR.

    The group should focus on education of consumers, strengthening the medical production and regulation chain, and strategies to improve information sharing as well as the regulatory capacity of health systems, the proposal adds.

    India and Thailand’s draft resolution suggests an alternative way to approach work on dangerous drugs: by focussing on measures to ensure safety and quality.

    The International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) was “not approved by any governing body of WHO,” and should be replaced with “an effective programme to address the issues of quality safety and efficacy” of medicines, it says.

    “Noting that the term and definition of “counterfeit” relates to infringement of intellectual property rights” and that “infringement of intellectual property rights is being confused with the issues of quality, safety and efficacy” the resolution calls for measures to ensure affordable access to needed medicines.

    It asks member states to ensure that public health does not become a victim of intellectual property enforcement, and asks WHO to avoid becoming involved in matters of IP infringement. It also asks for the WHO to support member states if requested in strengthening the technical capacity and knowledge of national drug regulatory authorities.

    French Industry Meeting on Counterfeit

    Counterfeit medicines are a danger that requires an internationally coordinated effort to combat, said panelists at the Leem event on 16 May.

    The use of the term “counterfeit” has caused controversy at the WHO (see IPW, WHO, 12 May 2010 and 27 January 2009) for further details. It is feared by some that the term will confuse IP issues with health issues; many developing countries and civil society groups would prefer a focus on sub-standard drugs – which would include poor quality or expired drugs, as well as those that are fake.

    Panellists included: Hans Hogerzeil, the director of the WHO Essential Medicines and Pharmaceutical Policies; Aline Plançon, a criminal intelligence officer from the international police organisation Interpol who is leading a joint project between Interpol and IMPACT; Komlan Mally, Togo’s minister of health; André Mama Founda, Cameroon’s minister of health; Jacques Franquet, director of economic and property safety and security at pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis; Marc Gentilini from the Fondation Chirac; and Florence Veber of the French ministry of foreign and European affairs. But no representatives of public health advocates were evident at the event.

    Counterfeit “is a crime” said Plançon, adding that the intent is not to change existing legislation but to find concrete actions to stop it.

    There are those that question IMPACT, but in reality there is no reason it should stop the production of generic medicines that meet regulatory standards, said Wiltzer.

    Veber said combating counterfeit needed to involve the political level (as in the project directive of the Council of Europe), legislation, capacity building against falsified medicines, and education of citizens. Ensuring access to good medicines, she added, is the other side of the fight.

    WHO: Counterfeit “Greater Health Risk”

    “In numbers, counterfeit medicines are less common than substandard medicines, but the health risks are much greater and increasing,” Hogerzeil said in a presentation to the 16 May event.

    Hogerzeil also presented the initial results of a WHO survey of national uses of the word counterfeit (IPW, WHO, 11 December 2009), which he said brought responses from 60 countries. The WHO definition focuses on public health and leaves IP to other agencies, and IMPACT’s definition excludes patent disputes, as well as non-authorised products and quality problems in legitimate products, he said. Also, a recent International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations statement said that counterfeits have nothing to do with patents.

    Of these responses, 34 countries use the word counterfeit in their national legislation, but definitions are varied. Others use the words falsified, illicit, illegal, unregulated, unauthorised, or adulterated. Of those countries with laws on the matter, in 31 they are regulatory, in eight they are related to intellectual property, in six to crime, and in six others the legislation is still in preparation, said Hogerzeil’s presentation.

    Hogerzeil also commented in his presentation on generic drug delays through the European Union, calling them “unfortunate, as they mix counterfeit issues with patent disputes.” The WHO has asked the Netherlands and the EU for an explanation, and urged them to resolve and prevent the problem in the future.

    WHO also welcomed a recent start of consultations that could lead to a dispute panel at the World Trade Organization on the issue, he said in the presentation.

    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.