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 Interns Summer 2013

IP-Watch interns Brittany Ngo (Yale Graduate School of Public Health) and Caitlin McGivern (University of Law, London) talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

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.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • 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 >

    At WTO, Online Pharmacy Watchdog, Tobacco Industry Explain Anti-Counterfeiting Efforts

    Published on 7 October 2013 @ 7:16 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center [corrected] organised a panel during the World Trade Organization Public Forum last week to explore what industry sees as challenges of trade in the digital age. Three panellists presented concerns – mainly counterfeiting – and solutions they have put in place to address such challenges.

    Marjorie Clifton, executive director of the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies (CSIP), said CSIP was founded two years ago and was not trying to discourage people from getting online drugs but providing safe channels of distribution, mainly for prescriptions drugs.

    CSIP’s members are composed of search engines advertisers, registries and registrars, payment processors, and shippers, she said.

    Over 25 percent of consumers in the United States purchase prescription drugs online, she said. Drivers for buying online seem to be price and convenience, she added.

    However, most of the online pharmacies available to US consumers [corrected] are not legitimate, she said. The National Association of the Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) in its July 2013 report on Internet Drug Outlet Identification , said that out of the 10,533 internet drug outlets selling prescription medications that the association reviewed, “96.66 percent were found to be operating out of compliance with state and federal laws and/or NABP patient safety and pharmacy practice standards, and are listed as Not Recommended in the ‘Buying Medicine Online’ section” of the NABP Website.

    The NABP chases unsafe drugs as well as counterfeit drugs, which may relate only to an intellectual property rights infringement. In its report, the NABP says that a large part of these counterfeit drugs are aimed at treating erectile dysfunction. “They take a trademarked name and tack on descriptors … as though such products had been developed, tested, and approved alongside the authentic drug.”

    “While these counterfeit drugs may (or may not) contain some quantity of the authentic drug’s active ingredient, because they are not subject to the testing and safety requirements as the approved drug, there is no way of knowing whether they contain the right amount of the active ingredient, or what other substances or impurities they may contain,” the report says.

    The use of the term “counterfeit” for unsafe or spurious drugs has been hotly debated at the World Health Organization where some developing countries, and civil society have argued that the use of trademark infringement to describe unbranded products could create confusion for legitimate generic drugs.

    The unsafe online pharmacy started “with a Viagra problem,” Clifton said, but now has spread to chronic illnesses such as HIV and cancer drug. CSIP promotes safe online pharmacy through consumer education, partnership with law enforcement, and sharing information, she explained.

    According to Clifton, there are between 40,000 and 50,000 active drug sellers at a given time on the internet. In 2011, she said, the registrar Go Daddy shut down 47,000 illegal online drug sellers. Some 27,000 of these sites also contained malware used for identity theft, she underlined. Between November 2011 and December 2012, “our companies collectively shut down over 3 million websites.”

    She mentioned the partnership of CSIP with Interpol, in particular the “Operation Pangea,” which, according to Interpol, is an international week of action tackling the online sale of counterfeit and illicit medicines.”

    Interpol also announced in March the launch of the “Pharmaceutical Industry Initiative to Combat Crime,”which is an agreement with 29 pharmaceutical companies committing some €4.5 million (US$ 6 million) over three years (IPW, Public Health, 14 March 2013).

    Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition: Follow the Money

    Robert Barchiesi, president of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC), said the coalition determined that the best way to go after “rogue merchants” was to follow the money around the world.

    Counterfeiters, he said, rely heavily on card transactions to make online sales. Consumers seeing a MasterCard, Visa or American Express logo on a website, find it provides some legitimacy.

    The IACC is trying to “demonetise” counterfeiters, he said, in particular through a “Portal Program.” According to an IACC statistical review [pdf] of the Payment Processor Initiative & Portal Program, launched in January 2012, “the only real deterrent to counterfeiters is to make counterfeiting less profitable as an industry, payment processing has been identified as an effective choke-point in the fight against counterfeit goods.”

    “The main objective of the Portal Program is to provide a streamlined, simplified procedure that allows rights-holders to report online sellers of counterfeit or pirated goods directly to credit card and payment processing networks in a more time- and cost-efficient manner,” the report said.

    Partners in the initiative include MasterCard, Visa International, Visa Europe, PayPal, American Express, and Diners Club, Barchiesi said. The programme aims include increasing the cost of doing business for counterfeiters, and to “shrink the universe of third-party acquiring banks,” which are doing business with “rogue merchants,” he said.

    The programme “is dependent on Card Network policies, which prohibit merchants from using card services for illegal transactions,” the report said. “Use of card services for sales of counterfeit or pirated goods constitutes a breach of these policies, and thus provides for remediation of the corresponding merchant account. Because merchants are bound by Card Network policies regardless of jurisdiction, the Portal Program has global reach.”

    Tobacco Industry: Collaboration with WHO, WCO Needed

    Daniel Hubert, head of Supply Chain Tracking & Verification, for British American Tobacco (BAT), said the tobacco faces three main issues: smuggling, counterfeiting and tax evasion.

    Some 12 percent of the global tobacco consumption is illegal, he said, which amounts to between $5 and $10 billion dollars of loss annually, and government losing millions of dollars in tax revenue, he said.

    The company half-year report [pdf] of 2013 shows continued performance, and chairman, Richard Burrows said in the half-year highlights, “Despite fragile economic conditions persisting in some parts of the world, notably Europe, British American Tobacco has delivered another good set of results. The business is performing well and we are confident of another year of good earnings growth.”

    Counterfeiting is linked to organised crime and terrorism, Hubert said, and undermines health policies, like “the desire to ensure that regulated products are only sold to those over 18 years of age,” he said.

    The tobacco industry has campaigned against Australia – which implemented measures regulating the plain packaging of tobacco products to protect the health of its citizens – and has actively lobbied other countries considering such measures. Several countries have filed disputes at the World Trade Organization against Australia, on the grounds that plain packaging is in breach of their obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (IPW, IP-Watch Briefs, 28 September 2013).

    The approach of industry to address the current issues of counterfeiting is to secure the global supply chains, and track products, Hubert said. Four major tobacco industries (BAT, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco International and Philip Morris International) have joined efforts and set up the Digital Coding & Tracking Association to that effect.

    BAT is also working with Interpol and the World Customs Organization (WCO), he said. The company also “wholly supports” the World Health Organization’s Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.

    The WHO “is trying to glue together the global supply chain for the tobacco industry,” he said, but basic rules have to be followed if this attempt at regulation is to be successful, he said. Each country should make sure when they translate the WHO regulation into their national regulations that the track-and-trace systems they put in place talk to each other.

    More coordination and collaboration between WHO, WCO and WTO as custodians of international trade, is key to success, he said. He admitted that WHO “does not want to talk to us now”, but “it would seem lunacy not to include the industry in this dialogue because we know how the supply chains work,” he said.

    The WTO Public Forum took place from 1-3 October and was themed “expanding trade through innovation and the digital economy.”

    Chan Praises EU Efforts Against Tobacco

    Meanwhile, on 7 October, WHO Director General Margaret Chan issued a statement encouraging the European Union in its process of updating the EU Tobacco Products Directive, underlining weaknesses, gaps and loopholes in the existing 2001 directive [pdf].

    As party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the EU “has an obligation to strengthen its tobacco control legislation to reflect its international commitments,” she said. Among the steps countries have to take are banning advertising, putting large health warnings on packages of tobacco, and counteracting illicit trade, according to the statement.

    “In the case of the EU Directive,” the statement said, “the tobacco industry is, once again, making an extraordinary effort to keep its products from being regulated, precisely because regulation works so well to reduce the vast harm caused by tobacco products. The tobacco industry is, once again, using an arsenal of economic arguments, precisely because such arguments are so effective in shifting the emphasis away from health, especially in times of financial austerity.” She encouraged EU parliamentarians to turn a deaf ear to those pressures.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.211.231.221