WIPO Committee On IP Enforcement Beats Drum Of Awareness

The enforcement of intellectual property rights is a challenge in particular because of the lack of awareness of the consequences of infringement, said several speakers at the World Intellectual Property Organization committee on enforcement this week.

The tenth session of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is meeting from 23-25 November.

The non-negotiating committee’s activity this week is focused on two main subjects: Practices and operation of alternative dispute resolution systems in intellectual property areas; and preventive actions, measures or successful experiences to complement ongoing enforcement measures with a view to reducing the size of the market for pirated or counterfeited goods.

A suggested time schedule [pdf] was provided on 23 November by the secretariat, which also prepared a list of preparatory documents [pdf].

Also on the agenda [pdf] is a document [pdf] about recent activities of WIPO in the field of building respect for IP, and a document [pdf] on the future work of the ACE.

Two panel discussions are expected to take place this week, the first on 24 November on “Public Communication Campaigns on Respect of IP and Awareness Tools for Young People,” the second on 25 November on “Strategic Cooperation among Various Government Agencies.”

Future Work of the ACE

Delegate this week are expected to discuss the future work of the committee.

According to the document on the future work of the ACE, at its first session in 2003, the ACE agreed on the principle of a thematic approach to its work. The last summary by the chair [pdf] at the 9^th session of the committee listed three proposals remaining on the table for future consideration. The first is “A Review of Awareness-Building Activities as a Means of Building Respect for Intellectual Property Rights, Especially Among School-Age Children and Students,” which is found in Annex I of the document, and was proposed by the Group B developed countries.

The second is “A Discussion on How to Intensify and Improve WIPO’s Enforcement-Related Technical Assistance,” found in Annex II and proposed by the Development Agenda Group (DAG). And the third is “The Specialization of the Judiciary and Intellectual Property Courts,” found in Annex III and proposed by Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In April 2015, the secretariat invited member states to submit other proposals. These have been received from: Chile (Capacity Building and Support from WIPO for Training Activities at the National, Regional and International Levels and for Agencies and National Officials with Intellectual Property Enforcement Expertise); the Philippines (Strategic Programs on Education Campaigns Aiming to Build Respect for IP Especially for the Youth), and (Sharing Experiences on the Enforcement Functions of National Intellectual Property Offices); the European Union (Voluntary National Presentations of IP Enforcement Regimes).

A statement of support was also received from Mexico for the Group B proposal, and for a review of the possibilities to intensify and improve WIPO’s enforcement-related technical assistance, according to the document.

Awareness-Raising

On the first day of the committee several speakers presented national experiences of awareness raising. In particular, a study [pdf] on “understanding the shadow market in Mexico,” commissioned by the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, found that there is a widespread social acceptance of piracy in Mexico.

The most common products affected by counterfeiting in Mexico include music, films, clothing, cosmetics, medical products, software, video games, cigars and spirits, the presenter said.

The study divided the infringers into three groups based on low, moderate, and high consumption. It was found by the study that the high consumption groups appear to be more sophisticated consumers, young and educated, “whose first choice is piracy.”

The low and moderate groups are receptive to messages that underline the negative effects of consuming pirated products, the presenter said, and the risks to their health. They were also receptive to message illustrating the link between counterfeit goods and organised crime, he said.

However, the third group of consumers, which has ideological and aspirational reasons for consuming pirated goods, might not be responsive to such awareness-raising campaigns, he said.

Maha Bakhiet Zaki, director, IP and Competitiveness Department, Economic Sector of the League of Arab States presented animated cartoons as an interesting awareness-raising tool.

From the Spanish IP and Trademark Office, Cristina Fernández Ordás, director, Department of Legal Coordination and International Relation, said the office is carrying out different activities [pdf] of awareness-raising, among which poster campaigns, poster competition, an “I Am Original,” and events on the World Anti-Counterfeiting Day.

Another speaker from the Kenya Copyright Board presented raising awareness efforts [pdf] in Kenya.

Enforcement of IP Rights, Different Approaches

Greece, on behalf of Group B, underlined the importance of the ACE and IP enforcement. Without effective enforcement mechanisms, IP rights cannot be used to promote innovation, the Greek delegate said. IP enforcement should be the common interest of countries, irrespective of their level of development, she said. She added that the group is interested in preventive actions to prevent and combat “cyber-counterfeiting.”

India, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific Group, said the mandate of the ACE is to “carry out technical assistance and coordination in the field of IP enforcement.” The group “expects that the technical assistance provided by WIPO on IP enforcement should be in sync with the Development Agenda Recommendation number 45, which calls upon WIPO to address IP enforcement in the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented concerns,” the Indian delegate said.