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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns 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.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »
  • 'Business methods were generally not patentable in... »

  • 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 >

    WIPO Design Treaty Fate Left To Assembly, Despite Shift On Technical Assistance

    Published on 21 March 2014 @ 11:21 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Intellectual Property Organization committee on trademarks could not agree this week to recommend the convening of a high-level meeting to adopt a treaty on industrial designs.

    The Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place from 17-21 March. The decision on holding a diplomatic conference for the design treaty was left to the 8-9 May WIPO General Assembly.

    The summary by the chair [pdf] was issued this morning, reflecting differences on whether to recommend the diplomatic conference on a procedural treaty on international registration on designs.

    This was followed by informal discussions before delegates reconvened in plenary and conducted some “fine tuning” of the summary, according to meeting Chair Adil El Maliki.

    The summary was adopted with minor changes reflected in a final version [pdf], and the meeting ended at midday.

    El Maliki is director general of the Morocco Industrial and Commercial Property Office.

    Support for African Group Position Shifts

    The 54-nation African Group, which along with India, kept the position that the industrial design treaty should include an article about technical assistance and capacity building, seemed to be isolated as many countries which shared its position are now shifting and saying that they are prepared to envisage either an article or a resolution, which would not be included in the text of the treaty. But some of these countries continued to ask that the technical assistance provisions be legally binding. The United States continues to insist on a resolution.

    Kenya, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that group did not consider the draft treaty mature enough for a diplomatic conference, since all issues do not have the same legal status, referring to the decision on technical assistance.

    South Africa supported the African Group statement and said the issue of the article on technical assistance should be solved prior to the convening of a diplomatic conference and appealed to all delegations that have been resisting an article to show flexibility in the Assembly. “It takes two to tango,” he said.

    Uruguay, for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, said the group found the text far better than before. “Technical assistance is in there,” he said, referring to draft treaty language under discussion. “We did say that we wanted to be flexible irrespective of the way this is reflected.”

    This was supported by Peru, and Trinidad and Tobago, which said that although the country preferred a legally binding article for technical assistance in the past, after listening to all delegations, it could now be flexible on an article or a resolution.

    “We do not want to be seen as a stumbling block to the process as we move forward to a diplomatic conference,” he said, if there is an “effective provision” for technical assistance and capacity building, this is what matters.

    Bangladesh on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group said it found the chair’s summary was balanced and factual, and although they had been in favour of a legally binding article, they would now be ready to accept any legally binding provision, whether it is a resolution or an article.

    India differentiated itself from the Asia Pacific Group and said that India’s understanding of a legally binding provision would be in the form of an article.

    Brazil said the text it is still work in progress and the perception about its level of maturity should be assessed at each step.

    EU “Flexible” on Technical Assistance

    On paragraph 9 of the chair’s summary, which refers to convening a diplomatic conference, the European Union remarked that all delegations that took the floor at the last session on the SCT, from 4-8 November 2013 had been in favour of convening a diplomatic conference, as noted in the summary by the chair [pdf] of that session. That was supported by the Central European and Baltic States Group, and Japan for the Group B developed countries.

    The November chair’s summary said, “Concerning the convening of a diplomatic conference for the adoption of a Design Law Treaty, the Chair noted that all delegations that had taken the floor were in favour of convening such a diplomatic conference. A large number of delegations was of the view that an agreement to address technical assistance in the form of an article in the treaty had to be reached prior to convening such a diplomatic conference.”

    Spain said it was concerned about some delegations making the diplomatic conference depend upon obtaining a position, which he said was “a dangerous sort of game.” The Spanish delegate said Spain and the EU were ready to accept an article, “but the fact that the issue has not been yet decided upon does not prevent us from considering that a lot of progress has been made.” The possibility of an article is still left open, he said. Africa, by contrast, has said the decision on article should precede a decision to go forward to a diplomatic conference.

    Changes in Chair’s Summary

    Two noticeable changes were made in the final version of the summary by the chair, which covered all of the issues on the week’s agenda.

    The changes occurred in paragraph 17 on geographical indications, which has been shortened to only state, “A number of delegations expressed support for the proposal to prepare a current survey of existing national Geographical Indication regimes presented by the Delegation of the United States of America in document SCT/31/7. Other delegations did not support this proposal.” That new version disposes of some explanations on the discussions that have occurred on the subject yesterday (IPW, WIPO, 21 March 2014).

    In paragraph 8 on technical assistance, a clarification was added at the end of the last sentence now reading, “On this particular issue, other delegations said they were flexible. Some other delegations said that, although they preferred a resolution, they would consider an article, but not as a precondition for convening a diplomatic conference.”

    Protection of GIs in the Domain Name System

    A number of countries that are proponents of geographical indications submitted a proposal [pdf] to the SCT this week, which will be discussed at the next session of the SCT.

    Separately, European Parliament President Martin Schulz has called upon the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to protect GIs on the .wine and .vin domains, according to a release by the European Federation of Origin Wines

    The letter [pdf] from Schulz states that GIs “are one of Europe’s greatest assets and as such must be safeguarded.”

    “If no clear protection against misuses of our GIs is provided for,” he wrote, “domain names such as “champagne.vin,” “rioja.wine,” “chianti.wine” … and many others may be registered by firms and individuals having no link with the GI in question,” having consequences such as cybersquatting, GI abuses and misappropriation, and unfair competition.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Could The WIPO General Assembly Reject DG Francis Gurry’s Nomination? | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] Also on the agenda of the General Assembly is a committee recommendation to move to a final treaty negotiation (diplomatic conference) on a design law treaty. Getting agreement has not been as easy as some expected (IPW, WIPO, 21 March 2014). […]


    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 157.55.39.221