<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<h2 class="posttitle"> At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against
Counterfeiting, Piracy </h2>
<small>Published on 21 December 2012 @ 7:35 pm</small>
<p class="postmetadata"> <span class="st_facebook_buttons"
st_title="At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against Counterfeiting,
Piracy"
st_url="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/21/at-wipo-a-complex-fight-against-counterfeiting-piracy/"
displaytext="share"></span><span class="st_twitter_buttons"
st_title="At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against Counterfeiting,
Piracy"
st_url="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/21/at-wipo-a-complex-fight-against-counterfeiting-piracy/"
displaytext="share"></span><span class="st_email_buttons"
st_title="At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against Counterfeiting,
Piracy"
st_url="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/21/at-wipo-a-complex-fight-against-counterfeiting-piracy/"
displaytext="Email"></span><span class="st_sharethis_buttons"
st_title="At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against Counterfeiting,
Piracy"
st_url="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/21/at-wipo-a-complex-fight-against-counterfeiting-piracy/"
displaytext="Share"></span> <span class="printthis"><a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/21/at-wipo-a-complex-fight-against-counterfeiting-piracy/print/"
title="Print This Post" rel="nofollow"><img
class="WP-PrintIcon"
src="cid:part1.09040705.02060106@gmail.com" alt="Print This
Post" title="Print This Post" style="border: 0px;"></a> <a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/21/at-wipo-a-complex-fight-against-counterfeiting-piracy/print/"
title="Print This Post" rel="nofollow">Print This Post</a>
</span> </p>
<p>By <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/author/catherine/"
title="Posts by Catherine Saez" rel="author">Catherine Saez</a>,
Intellectual Property Watch</p>
<p>The fight against counterfeiting and piracy is at the heart of
the World Intellectual Property Organization committee on
enforcement, a non-negotiating body. In a meeting of the committee
this week, delegates heard expert presentations on ways to tackle
infringement and measure its impact. However, the smooth
discussions were disrupted by considerations of the future work of
the committee. <span id="more-25496"></span></p>
<p>The 8<sup>th</sup> session of the WIPO Advisory Committee on
Enforcement (ACE) took place from 19-20 December.</p>
<p>At the outset of the meeting, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry
said he was delighted to see the number of delegations present in
the committee, and took it as an indication of the high importance
of the subject matter.</p>
<p>“It is very difficult to find what role an international
organisation can play in this area, because it is a very delicate
area and the international community has been very good in the
last 50 years at developing rules,” but a number of compliance
mechanisms, in all fields, not just IP, are extremely limited,” he
said.</p>
<p>The future work of the committee, Gurry added, is an important
opportunity to reflect and find creative solutions which will have
a positive impact on the issue of enforcement.</p>
<p>Ambassador Thomas Fitschen of Germany was elected chair of the
committee. He said that at the 7th session of the ACE (30 November
– 1 December 2011), following a request from the Development
Agenda Group (DAG), an agenda item on the contribution of the ACE
to the implementation of the respective WIPO Development Agenda
Recommendations was adopted.</p>
<p>Since the establishment in November of the draft agenda for this
week’s meeting, informal consultations on this point were held and
regional groups decided to proceed as last year, he said. The
additional agenda on the contribution of the ACE to the
implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda was adopted and was
inserted just before the last item of the <a
href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ace_8/wipo_ace_8_1_prov.pdf">draft
agenda</a>.</p>
<p>Belgium on behalf of the Group B developed countries said the
group welcomed the proposal for the additional agenda item, as
long as it did not become a standing item of the committee.</p>
<p>Future Work: Group B, DAG Proposals Stored Till Next Session</p>
<p>At the end of each session of the ACE, the work for the next
session of the committee is discussed. Four proposals were on the
table for the future work of the committee.</p>
<p>These included two submitted this month: a <a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Group-B-proposal-ACE-Dec-2012.pdf">proposal
from Group B</a> [pdf], calling for a study identifying the
existence of initiatives targeted at school age students, to be
presented at the 9th session of the committee; and<strong> </strong>a
<a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Korea-proposal-ACE-Dec-2012.pdf">proposal
from Korea</a> [pdf], proposing that the WIPO secretariat
conduct a study on practices and operation of alternative dispute
resolution systems in IP areas, and whose results be presented at
the 9th session.</p>
<p>Also on the table were two earlier proposals. This included one <a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Peru-proposal-ACE-Dec-2012.pdf">from
Peru</a> [pdf], submitted in December 2011 and updated for this
session, calling for a study on the economic impact of piracy and
counterfeiting, identifying preventive actions, measures and
successful experiences, taking into account the different level of
development of member states.</p>
<p>And the fourth proposal for future work<strong> </strong>was
from the <a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DAG-proposal-ACE-Dec-2012.pdf">Development
Agenda Group</a> [pdf] dating from December 2010, requesting a
discussion on how to intensify and improve WIPO’s
enforcement-related technical assistance, including legislative
assistance with a view to preventing the abuse of enforcement
procedures such as “sham litigation,” and legislative assistance
in drafting national laws of enforcement that take into account
the use of flexibilities as well as the different socio-economic
realities and the difference in the legal tradition of each
country.</p>
<p>Group B said they had concerns about duplication of work in the
DAG proposal, in particular on the legislative assistance as
described in the proposal, because earlier work had been carried
out by the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual
Property.</p>
<p>Despite informal consultations on the last afternoon, delegates
found it difficult to agree on the four proposals. The chair
proposed that the four proposals be incorporated into the future
work of the committee, but some countries, in particular Group B,
disagreed, and proposed to withdraw its proposal if the DAG would
withdraw its proposal, in an effort to reach consensus on the
future work of the committee.</p>
<p>However, the DAG said Group B’s decision to withdraw its proposal
was its sole responsibility and did not engage a decision by the
DAG. Fitschen put a swift end to the polemics by declaring that
the Korean and the Peruvian proposals, on which there was
consensus, would be kept as the future work programme, and that
further discussions would be undertaken at the next session on the
Group B and the DAG proposals.</p>
<p>The Brazilian delegate told <em>Intellectual Property Watch</em>
that it would have been preferable to the DAG to have kept the
four proposals in the work programme.</p>
<p>No Norm-Setting in ACE</p>
<p>A WIPO source noted that “the ACE, unlike other WIPO standing
committees, does not have any norm-setting mandate, but a
technical assistance and coordination mandate.”</p>
<p>“In particular, the ACE coordinates with certain organisations
and the private sector to combat counterfeiting and piracy,” the
source told <em>Intellectual Property Watch</em>. For example,
WIPO works with the World Customs Organization, Interpol, and
private sector organizations to organise the Global Congress on
Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/ace/">The ACE</a> was
established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2002 and “emerged from
various preceding WIPO Committees and Meetings dealing with IP
enforcement issues,” according to WIPO. The committee focusses on
a number of objectives, such as “public education, assistance,
coordination to undertake national and regional training programs
for all relevant stakeholders and exchange of information on
enforcement issues,” said the WIPO source.</p>
<p>During the 8th session, several experts were asked to give <a
href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25015">presentations</a>
on a number of subjects, including: the quantification of economic
effects of counterfeit and pirated goods; media piracy in emerging
economies; consumer attitudes and perceptions on counterfeiting
and piracy; methods of disposal and destruction of counterfeit and
pirated goods within the Asia-Pacific region; and IPR
infringements and enforcement accounting for socio-economic,
technical and development variables.</p>
<p>The WIPO secretariat also presented a <a
href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ace_6/wipo_ace_6_2.pdf">report
on recent activities</a> [pdf]<strong> </strong>of WIPO in the
field of “building respect for intellectual property.”</p>
<p>Brazil said that its comments from the last session of the ACE
had been followed and the new version of the WIPO<strong> </strong>document
presented more information, and was easier to access. However, the
delegation said, the secretariat should give more details on
activities undertaken by WIPO, in particular in the area of
technical assistance and on WIPO’s participation in symposiums and
seminars. Brazil said it would be interesting to member states to
know who the speakers were at those events, the subjects
discussed, and to be able to access the presentations made.</p>
<p>WIPO said it would look into the issue and try providing more
information within the limits of what is possible. For example, it
said that on the congress on combating counterfeiting and piracy,
some meetings of the steering groups are not public and thus
content of the meeting is not publicly available.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Turkey said it will host the <a
href="http://www.ccapcongress.net/">7th Global Congress</a> on
combating counterfeiting and piracy, taking place in Istanbul,
from 24-26 April 2013. The WIPO secretariat said the UN agency is
preparing three panels for the congress, on the subjects of
building respect for IP, looking at the broader picture, and
public-private partnerships, with inputs with other partners of
the congress.</p>
<p>A representative of the World Customs Organization, which is
co-organising the congress, said the programme is expected to be
posted shortly on the congress website.</p>
<p>The committee’s work this week mainly consisted of listening and
commenting on the eight presentations provided by experts in the
field.</p>
<p>Group B Favours Enforcement, DAG Wants Development Ties</p>
<p>In their opening statement, Group B emphasised the importance
attached to the ACE and the effective enforcement of IP rights,
which was of utmost importance for right holders, consumers, and
the economy. The delegate said this is true irrespective of the
stage of development of countries.</p>
<p>Brazil, on behalf of the DAG, said “the discussions on building
respect for IP in this committee illustrates how complex is this
issue and the need to further study and understand it in order to
provide orientation to adequate and efficient public policies,
taking into account the different socioeconomic conditions of each
country.”</p>
<p>The Brazilian delegate called for “combining strategies and
regarding not only repression, but also educational and economic
measures,” recalling that Recommendation 45 of the WIPO
Development Agenda is “essential.”</p>
<p><a
href="http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/recommendations.html#f">Recommendation
45</a> requests “to approach intellectual property enforcement
in the context of broader societal interests and especially
development-oriented concerns, with a view that ‘the protection
and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute
to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer
and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of
producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner
conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of
rights and obligations’, in accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS
[World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights]”</p>
<p>The Brazilian delegate added that “only WIPO, a specialised UN
agency, has the necessary credentials of expertise and legitimacy
to lead the debate on how to better ensure IP protection. Our
group is of the view that initiatives outside WIPO that reject
this broader understanding of the problem have small chances to
achieve sustainable results.”</p>
<p>The European Union said there was need for developing further
comprehensive and effective enforcement mechanisms, also
emphasising the importance of compliance with existing
enforcement, while recognising the different stages of development
of member states and the need for technical assistance to achieve
objectives. The EU suggested corporate social responsibility as
part of an enforcement strategy, adding that strict social
standards could play a key role in preventing piracy and
counterfeiting.</p>
<p>The Third World Network , a non-governmental organisation working
on development issues, said in <a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TWN-Statement-ACE-Dec-2012.docx">its
statement</a> [pdf] that the initiatives on IP enforcement
“should not hamper the development policy space of WIPO member
states, especially developing countries.” The representative said
“IP enforcement should respect other competing legal obligations
of member states, especially human rights obligations such as
[the] right to development, right to health, right to education
and right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its
applications.”</p>
<p>“We are concerned,” he said, “with the over expansion of [the]
legal concept of counterfeit to include all types of infringement
of IP rights. This would lead to the criminalization of all forms
of IP infringement and diversion of public money for the
enforcement of private rights, which is currently limited to
counterfeiting of trademarks and pirated copyrights<strong> </strong>goods.”</p>
<p>The ACE did not have time to discuss a summary by the chair,
which is expected to be approved at the next session, after member
states have the opportunity to provide comments.</p>
<p>The next meeting of the ACE has not yet been scheduled, but is
likely to be at least a year from now.</p>
</body>
</html>