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 Defends Involvement In IP Enforcement Meeting In The Philippines

    Published on 24 October 2011 @ 7:29 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency with nearly 200 member states, is under criticism for its connection with a Western industry-heavy event this week in the Philippines aimed at fighting intellectual property counterfeiting and piracy. The concern from technology industry and consumer advocates is that WIPO is involved in an overly one-sided event and did not sufficiently notify its diverse membership or the public of its activities.

    Within the 24-28 October meeting in Makati City, a financial centre of Manila, the Philippines, is one of a series of meetings with the title, WIPO Regional Workshop on “The Dangers of Counterfeit Goods to Public Health and Safety”.

    The event was not posted to the WIPO website events calendar until today (after WIPO was contacted about it), and no information other than the title and date is available on WIPO’s site. Regional meetings on the WIPO calendar of events appear to frequently not include the agenda or any other information than the title and date. For instance, this month there is a meeting on implementing the WIPO Development Agenda in Argentina, and a meeting in Ukraine on “the role of the copyright system in promoting the publishing industry.” But no further information is available about these.

    The agenda of the Philippines enforcement meeting was found on Google and is available here [pdf]. It shows that the first two days are mainly officials from WIPO and the Philippines government. It includes several government speakers responsible for industry sectors including food and drugs, books and optical media (CDs and DVDs). It is not clear how the latter items relate to public health and safety. There is a chamber of commerce representative, an academic, and a consumer representative on the agenda. The two-day segment of the meeting wraps up with all participants developing an “action plan”.

    The remaining three days are called the “IPR Business Partnership Workshop on Effective Border Control Measures,” and it includes a long list of representatives from some of the world’s best-known trademarks and brands, such as the Swiss Watch Federation, Chanel, Philips, Louis Vuitton, Hewlett Packard, and Pfizer. The meeting opens with the same WIPO official, is led by the International Trademark Industry Association, and includes a US official as a speaker.

    The Philippines IP Office posted an announcement of the event here. It states: “Fresh from the recent removal of the Philippines from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) due to progress in IPR enforcement efforts, the Summit is seen as a positive commitment from the Philippines, hailed as the ASEAN IPR Enforcement Champion, towards a stronger, more balanced and viable intellectual property system.” (ASEAN is the Association of South-East Asian Nations.)

    Influential US blog boingboing.net posted a note on 22 October accusing WIPO of involvement in a secret meeting filled with representatives of corporations seeking stronger enforcement of their trademarks, and no one representing “moderation and balance.”

    Asked about the meeting, a WIPO press officer said: “WIPO is not holding a ‘secret’ meeting. WIPO is jointly organizing, with the Philippines Intellectual Property Office, a two-day regional workshop on “The Dangers of Counterfeit Goods to Public Health and Safety”, which is part of a broader week-long program organized by the government of the Philippines on various aspects of counterfeiting and piracy. The program of the WIPO workshop includes speakers from WIPO, Philippines government agencies, universities, and representatives of consumer groups and the local chamber of commerce. Numerous government officials and journalists from the region have been invited to participate.”

    “WIPO’s involvement in the program relates to the first two days (workshop referred to above),” the spokesperson said. “The remainder of the program is organized by the Philippines government. The objective of the WIPO program focuses on developing and implementing national strategies on awareness raising through cross-sectorial collaboration. WIPO’s contribution to the program – in particular through the WIPO speakers – will address the question of balance and the cross-sectorial nature of the issue in line with strategic goal VI.”

    It was noted that Intellectual Property Watch previously wrote about the initiative leading to these events, funded by the US government and announced by the US ambassador in Geneva earlier this year (IPW, Enforcement, 26 April 2011). The US mission press release from April is here.

    US mission photos from the April event, posted here, show that the same WIPO official leading the Philippines event, Enforcement Director Louise Van Greunen, was on hand to receive the announcement of the US grant to WIPO for enforcement activities.

    There are two more meetings in the series now showing on the WIPO calendar: 1-3 November in Mombasa, Kenya, and 5-7 December in Casablanca, Morocco. Neither event on the WIPO calendar include any information about the meeting.

    Asked about the meeting, Nick Ashton-Hart, US technology industry representative in Geneva, said, “Given that activities of the Building Respect for IP programme must reflect a balanced approach as enshrined in the member-states-agreed Development Agenda, CCIA [Computer and Communications Industry Association] sees the clear bias in the programme and the lack of transparency about WIPO’s engagement in it as very troubling.”

    “Since more than 90% of WIPO’s funds come from patent and trademark registrants,” he said, “we believe that full disclosure of all events which WIPO is a part of organising, or where WIPO is a substantial participant, must be disclosed on WIPO’s website with full details well in advance.”

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

     

    Comments

    1. Ricardo R. Blancaflor says:

      IPOPHL denies anti-piracy summit is fostering corporate greed

      25 October 2011 – The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines today denounced reports that the on-going Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Summit favored big corporations.
      The bulk of the summit included special sessions on identifying the fake versions of Swiss Watches, New Era Caps, Chanel, Colgate Palmolive, Philips, Beiersdorf AG, Hewlett Packard, Castrol, Pfizer, Puma, Louis Vuitton, Singer and Unilever.
      The summit is held in cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency in charge of intellectual property.

      “Strictly speaking, the workshops sponsored by these corporations will, of course, teach our law enforcement officers how to act in the interest of those business entities,” observed Ricardo R. Blancaflor, Director General of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). “However, it is also true that these brands are the most pirated in the country. They have lost a lot of profits due to piracy.”

      Calls for moderation and balance in the enforcement agenda include Doctorow’s Creative Commons, whose Philippine branch is hosted by Arellano Law School. “Protecting foreign brands is ok, but not at the risk of overlooking Filipino brands. We should also promote Filipino brands as an alternative to expensive foreign brands,” said Creative Commons Philippines’ Bernie Guerrero.

      Some measures initiated by the IPOPHL have been criticized as harsh yet ineffective.

      In June this year, Mayor Lim of the City of Manila gave an ultimatum to vendors of pirated discs in Quiapo, mostly Muslim immigrants, to cease selling pirated goods at the risk of getting ejected from Quiapo, despite calls from multi-sectoral groups.
      Earlier this year, the IPOPHL also started talks with what it termed as the ‘elusive’ management of the Greenhills Shopping Centre, demanding that it eject lessees selling pirated wares at the risk of having the mall/store owners’ US visa cancelled.

      Despite this, IPOPHL Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor maintained, “We are very confident that we will hit the 2009 record of seizing Php 5.6B worth of pirated goods.”

      The increased number of fake items also denotes the increase in scope of pirate activities. Whereas before, pirated goods referred only to pirated discs, now the term includes counterfeit bags, watches, books, medicines, and consumer goods.

    2. Philippines IP Office: ‘Our Meeting Is Not Fostering Corporate Greed’ | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More > Latest CommentsRicardo R. Blancaflor on WIPO Defends Involvement In IP Enforcement Meeting In The PhilippinesIPOPHL denies anti-piracy summit is fostering corp… »Reji K. Joseph on New WIPO-WHO Drug [...]


    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.