U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2019 IP Index

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2019 IP Index Inspiring Tomorrow U.S. Chamber International IP Index | 7th Edition February 2019 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (www.theglobalipcenter.com) is working around the world to champion intellectual property rights as vital to creating jobs, saving lives, advancing global economic growth, and generating breakthrough solutions to global challenges. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. This report was conducted by Pugatch Consilum, (www.pugatch-consilium.com) a boutique consultancy that provides evidence-based research, analysis, and intelligence on the fastest growing sectors of the knowledge economy. Authors of this report are Meir Pugatch and David Torstensson. Professor Meir Pugatch, Managing Director and Founder Prof. Pugatch founded Pugatch Consilium in 2008. He specializes in intellectual property policy, management and exploitation of knowledge assets, technology transfer, market access, pharmacoeconomics and political economy of public health systems. He has extensive experience in economic and statistical modeling and indexing, valuation of assets and design of licensing agreements, and providing strategic advice to international institutions, multinational corporations, and SMEs from all sectors of the knowledge economy. In addition to his work at Pugatch Consilium, he is an IPKM Professor of Valorisation, Entrepreneurship and Management at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, as well as the Chair of the Health Systems Administration and Policy Division at the School of Public Health, University of Haifa in Israel. He is author and editor of an extensive number of publications and serves as a referee and editorial board member of numerous peer review journals. David Torstensson, Partner Dr. Torstensson specializes in innovation, tax and intellectual property policy, with a particular focus on the health care, information and communication technology and content industries. He has wide experience in policy and economic analysis, as well as data sampling and creation of strategic operational and advocacy plans. He is the author of a number of academic and commissioned reports and publications and is the co-author of all 7 editions of the U.S. Chamber International IP Index. Copyright © 2019 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved. No part of this work, covered by the copyrights herein, may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems—without the permission of the Chamber. U.S. Chamber International IP Index 7th Edition 1. FOREWORD The last two centuries have seen a radical and unforeseen transformation in the quality and longevity of human life. As we are caught up in the challenges facing the environment, we often fail to recognize how far we have come. In the words of Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker: “As we care about more of humanity, we’re apt to mistake the harms around us for signs of how low the world has sunk rather than how high our standards have risen.” We are at a turning point in history. Innovations in agriculture, manufacturing, health care, and technology coupled with an increasing abundance of creative work have lengthened and enriched our lives. These innovations reach every corner of the globe. We must harness the power of this rapid technological acceleration to address the world’s challenges and ensure that fewer and fewer of the world’s citizens are left behind. With this 7th edition, the U.S. Chamber International IP Index: Inspiring Tomorrow shows how intellectual property (IP) systems have been a driving force behind this transformation. Effective IP protections create a climate that drives the world’s innovators and creators to pursue a better tomorrow. Indeed, IP-driven innovation and creativity have ensured that our standards continue to rise. Consistent with its work on the Index, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce celebrates the ways that incentivizing investment in innovation has underpinned the hard won achievements in this age of IP-led technological advancement. Business leaders know from experience that what can’t be measured can’t be improved. Through the Index, we are measuring the global commitment to IP-led innovation and creativity. And through our Fair Value for Innovation platform, we are quantifying how far we have come. By harnessing the power of robust IP protection, we inspire the world’s innovators and creators to lead us to a better tomorrow. David Hirschmann President and CEO Global Innovation Policy Center U.S. Chamber of Commerce www.uschamber.com/ipindex | i Inspiring Tomorrow 25.00 20.00 35.00 30.00 45.00 40.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Venezuela 7.11 10.28 Algeria 11.83 Egypt 12.00 Pakistan 12.35 Ecuador ii 12.87 | U.S. Chamber International IP Index 7thEdition ChamberInternationalIP Index |U.S. Indonesia 2019 OverallScores 13.55 Nigeria 13.81 Vietnam 14.50 Thailand 14.67 Kenya 14.96 Argentina 15.05 Ukraine 15.55 South Africa 16.20 Philippines 16.22 India 16.47 Saudi Arabia 17.31 Brunei 18.06 Peru 18.22 UAE 18.25 Brazil 19.08 Jordan 19.46 Russia 19.97 Chile 20.70 Colombia Turkey China Malaysia Costa Rica Mexico Morocco Taiwan Canada Israel Poland New Zealand Hungary Australia South Korea Italy Spain Singapore Switzerland Japan Netherlands Ireland Germany France Sweden UK U.S. Venezuela Algeria Egypt Pakistan Ecuador Indonesia Nigeria Vietnam Thailand Kenya Argentina Ukraine South Africa Philippines India Saudi Arabia Brunei Peru UAE U.S. ChamberBrazil International IP Index 7th Edition Jordan Russia Chile Colombia 21.09 Turkey 21.45 China 22.37 Malaysia 22.38 Costa Rica 23.94 Mexico 24.44 Morocco 28.05 Taiwan 29.88 Canada 29.89 Israel 29.94 Poland 30.63 www.uschamber.com/ipindex | www.uschamber.com/ipindex New Zealand 34.18 Hungary 36.06 Australia 36.06 South Korea 36.58 Italy 37.07 Spain 37.12 Singapore iii 37.25 Switzerland 39.48 Japan 40.07 Netherlands 40.24 Ireland 40.54 Germany 41.00 France 41.03 Sweden 42.22 UK 42.66 U.S. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF IMPROVING IP PROTECTION Economies are 26% more TWICE competitive as likely to 55% produce and more likely 100 export complex, to adapt 80 knowledge- to sophisticated, 60 intensive state-of-the-art 40 products technology 20 67% 0 Share of workforce employed in knowledge-intensive sectors 53% is 67% higher more likely to employ high-skilled and high-paid workers 53% more likely to experience increased 30% R&D activity more likely to attract venture capital and private equity funds 33% more likely Over to receive Over 500 more 4 times more private-sector high-value inventions online and mobile investment in R&D per million population content generated activities 39% more likely 19 times more to attract foreign early-phase clinical trials investment U.S. Chamber International IP Index 7th Edition 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In a remarkably short time viewed in a historical generation of innovation, fuel the creation of 21st context, the lives of billions of people worldwide have century content, and create true knowledge-based been transformed for the better through innovation and economies. The 7th edition of the Index tells a story of creativity. Intellectual property (IP) systems have been investment in strong IP systems, even while populist the driving force behind this transformation, providing resistance continues to pose threats to the reliability of a legal framework of rights and responsibilities that has core IP rights in major markets. inspired the world’s innovators and creators to envision a better tomorrow and empowered them to secure it. The 2019 U.S. Chamber International IP Index creates a roadmap for countries that aspire to foster economic As governments increasingly invest in a legal and growth and global competitiveness through stronger regulatory framework that embraces robust IP IP. Now in its 7th edition, the Index benchmarks the IP protection and enforcement, they empower the next framework in 50 global economies. Algeria Ecuador Japan Peru Switzerland Argentina Egypt Jordan Philippines Taiwan Australia France Kenya Poland Thailand Brazil Germany Malaysia Russia Turkey Brunei Hungary Mexico Saudi Arabia UAE Canada India Morocco Singapore UK Chile Indonesia Netherlands South Africa U.S. China Ireland New Zealand South Korea Ukraine Colombia Israel Nigeria Spain Venezuela Costa Rica Italy Pakistan Sweden Vietnam The Index evaluates the IP infrastructure in each patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, economy based on 45 unique indicators, which commercialization of IP assets, enforcement, systemic are critical to the growth of effective IP systems. efficiency, and membership and ratification of The indicators span 8 categories of IP protection: international treaties. www.uschamber.com/ipindex | v Inspiring Tomorrow New indicators • Developing countries are on the move: Recognizing the benefits of robust IP Global technology transfers are crucial drivers of protection, a number of developing economies innovation. To facilitate technology diffusion and implemented reforms to bolster IP protection. access to innovative products and technologies, - In Asia, India’s score improved, climbing eight countries must have supportive and efficient IP places in the rankings from 44th in 2018 to frameworks for market entry and licensing of 36th in 2019. While broader challenges remain, rights. The Index includes four new indicators on the increase is a result of specific reforms that commercialization of IP assets and market access that better align India’s IP environment with the shed light on factors that either disrupt or facilitate international IP system, including its accession technology transfer in global markets: to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the agreement to initiate a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) • Barriers to technology transfer with Japan, a dedicated set of IP incentives for • Registration and disclosure requirements of small business, and administrative reforms to licensing deals address the patent backlog.
Recommended publications
  • Impact of International Law on the Application of Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia
    Hamzah, Dawood Adesola (2015) Impact of international law on the application of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/18432 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. Impact of International Law on the Application of Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia Dawood Adesola Hamzah Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD 2015 Department of Law School of Oriental and African Studies University of London Declaration for PhD Thesis I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulation for student of the SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group
    Annex 1 E PCT/WG/11/27 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 11, 2019 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Eleventh Session Geneva, June 18 to 22, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 18 to 22, 2018. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (69); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), and the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as an observer: Mauritius, Yemen (2). 4. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (7).
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Saudi M&A Laws
    Penn State Law Penn State Law eLibrary SJD Dissertations 4-27-2016 A Critique of Saudi M&A Laws Mulhim Hamad Almulhim [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/sjd Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Securities Law Commons, Taxation-Transnational Commons, Tax Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Almulhim, Mulhim Hamad, "A Critique of Saudi M&A Laws" (2016). SJD Dissertations. 2. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/sjd/2 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in SJD Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Pennsylvania State University Penn State Law A Critique of Saudi M&A Laws A Dissertation in Law by Mulhim Hamad Almulhim Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Juridical Science April 2016 Abstract This dissertation aims to elucidate Saudi Arabia’s mergers and acquisitions (M&A) laws. The dissertation studies and analyzes current Saudi M&A laws with reference to comparative models from different countries and provides recommendations to improve the transparency and efficiency of Saudi Arabia’s M&A laws. Such improvements may help companies attempting to conduct M&A activity in Saudi Arabia address certain barriers and difficulties, which may in turn help to stimulate the Saudi Arabian economy. Saudi Arabia is considered one of the world’s foremost emerging markets. Since Saudi Arabia joined the World Trade Organization, its stock market has been growing quickly, including rapid growth in M&A transactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on the Law of Patents
    E SCP/29/8 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JULY 3, 2019 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Twenty-Ninth Session Geneva, December 3 to 6, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Standing Committee 1. The Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (the “Committee” or the “SCP”) held its twenty-ninth session in Geneva from December 3 to 6, 2018. 2. The following Member States of WIPO and/or the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property were represented: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Zimbabwe (92). 3. Palestine was represented in an observer capacity. Representatives of the following intergovernmental organizations took part in the meeting in an observer capacity: European Patent Organization (EPO), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (SC), United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), World Trade Organization (WTO) (9).
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Business in Saudi Arabia 2017 Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT, U.S
    Doing Business in Saudi Arabia 2017 Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT, U.S. & FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. Table of Contents Doing Business in Saudi Arabia .......................................................................................... 4 Market Overview ............................................................................................................. 4 Market Challenges .......................................................................................................... 5 Market Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 6 Market Entry Strategy .................................................................................................... 8 Political Environment .......................................................................................................... 8 Political Environment ....................................................................................................... Selling US Products & Services ........................................................................................... 8 Using an Agent to Sell US Products and Services .......................................................... 8 Establishing an Office ................................................................................................... 10 Franchising ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Modernization, Codification and the Judicial Analysis: Exploring Predictability in Law in Sharī‘A Courts in Saudi Arabia
    Modernization, Codification and the Judicial Analysis: Exploring Predictability in Law in Sharī‘a Courts in Saudi Arabia Haitham H. Osta A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2015 Reading Committee: Gregory A. Hicks, Chair Louis E. Wolcher Michael Townsend Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Law ©Copyright 2015 Haitham H. Osta i University of Washington Abstract Modernization, Codification and the Judicial Analysis: Exploring Predictability in Law in Sharī‘a Courts in Saudi Arabia Haitham H. Osta Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Dean Gregory Hicks School of Law The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is undergoing a process of rapid, profound social transformation and economic development. As a result, some Saudis have argued that the legal system of Saudi Arabia should also undergo a profound transformation to meet the requirements of the rapidly changing society. In particular, some have advocated the idea of “codifying” the version of Islamic law, or Sharī‘a, that is recognized as the law of Saudi Arabia. This argument is justified in part by the ability of codification to enhance predictability in the legal system that the current traditional analysis of Sharī‘a law within Sharī‘a Courts does not offer, as argued by some Saudi progressives. While many other Islamic countries have done just that, the idea of codifying Sharī‘a is much more controversial in Saudi Arabia. This dissertation explores the actual status of predictability within the current judicial analysis of Sharī‘a Courts focusing on the perspective of the Saudi lawyers. The dissertation also explores why the idea of codification is so intensely controversial within Saudi Arabia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Targeted Industry Approach for Raising Quality Private-Sector Employment in Saudi Arabia for More Information on This Publication, Visit
    C O R P O R A T I O N SHANTHI NATARAJ, HOWARD J. SHATZ, LOUAY CONSTANT, MATTHEW SARGENT, SEAN MCKENNA, YOUSUF ABDELFATAH, FLORENTINE ELOUNDOU NEKOUL, NATHAN VEST, THE DECISION SUPPORT CENTER A Targeted Industry Approach for Raising Quality Private-Sector Employment in Saudi Arabia For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA536-1. About RAND The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. To learn more about RAND, visit www.rand.org. Research Integrity Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal System of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia I
    Comparison between legal system in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia i [Kasi Stradley] Legal System of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia Introduction This research paper is about the legal system of Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. Their legal systems differ accordingly and are compared in this research paper. The comparison of their legal system illustrates the court systems which are followed in both the countries. Indonesia is a group islands country as Saudi Arabia is country situated in the lower western side of Asia. Saudi Arabia is considered to be the centre of the world because it has been situated right in the centre of the world map. Both the countries are Islamic and follow a common law that is the Islamic law. Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are both Islamic countries and follow the Islamic principles and jurisdiction. They have some legal rights that differ according to their country rules and regulations, policy and government. There are some judiciary rules which aren’t acceptable in the governing and legislating of Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia has been following a traditional policy since the birth of the Islamic law. They have strong policies that prevent the women and men to discriminate in many factors. Indonesia does follow the Islamic law but it does have some dependence over the English common law too. Although they haven’t accepted the compulsory ICJ jurisdiction but their legislative branches still follow the Khalifa system which was being followed in late 20th century. Though they have dual court systems which discriminate in running a civil and sharia Comparison between legal system in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia ii court system.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposals (9) Received from Member States to Host a WIPO External
    E ORIGINAL: DATE: Proposals (9) received from Member States to host a WIPO External Office in the 2018-2019 biennium in accordance with the ‘Guiding Principles Regarding WIPO External Offices’ (contained in document A/55/INF/11) April 13, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Annexes Circular Note Proposal by Azerbaijan..................................................................................................... Annex I Proposal by India ............................................................................................................. Annex II Proposal by Iran (Islamic Republic of) ............................................................................ Annex III Proposal by Oman .......................................................................................................... Annex IV Proposal by the Republic of Korea .................................................................................. Annex V Proposal by Romania ..................................................................................................... Annex VI Proposal by Saudi Arabia .............................................................................................. Annex VII Proposal by Turkey ...................................................................................................... Annex VIII Proposal by the United Arab Emirates ............................................................................ Annex IX Annex I Original version in English Annex I, page 2 [Annex II follows] Annex II Government of India Proposal
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS)
    E CWS/7/29 PROV. ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: AUGUST 14, 2019 Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS) Seventh Session Geneva, July 1 to 5, 2019 DRAFT REPORT prepared by the Secretariat INTRODUCTION 1. The Committee on WIPO Standards (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”, or “the CWS”) held its Seventh Session in Geneva from July 1 to 5, 2019. 2. The following Member States of WIPO and/or members of the Paris Union and Bern Union were represented at the session: Algeria; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bolivia (Plurinational State Of); Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Congo; Côte D'ivoire; Croatia; Czechia; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Finland; Germany; Ghana; Guatemala; Honduras; Hungary; India; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Kazakhstan; Lebanon; Mauritania; Nepal; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Paraguay; Republic Of Korea; Romania; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Spain; Sweden; Thailand; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States Of America (48). 3. In their capacity as members of the CWS, the representatives of the following intergovernmental organizations took part in the Session: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI); African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO); Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO); European Patent Office (EPO); European Union (EU); Patent Office Of The Cooperation Council For The Arab States Of The Gulf (GCC Patent Office) (6). 4. Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations took part in the Session in an observer capacity: Association Des Spécialistes De La Propriété Intellectuelle De Côte D’ivoire (ASPICI); International Association For The Protection Of Intellectual Property (AIPPI); Confederacy Of European Patent Information User Groups (CEPIUG); Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) (4). CWS/7/29 Prov. page 2 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore
    E WIPO/GRTKF/IC/36/11 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2018 Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore Thirty-Sixth Session Geneva, June 25 to 29, 2018 REPORT Adopted by the Committee WIPO/GRTKF/IC/36/11 page 2 1. Convened by the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (“the Committee” or “the IGC”) held its Thirty-Sixth Session (“IGC 36”) in Geneva, from June 25 to 29, 2018. 2. The following States were represented: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherland, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe (96). The European Union (“the EU”) and its Member States were also represented as a member of the Committee. 3. The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine participated in the meeting in an observer capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Gender in the Saudi Shura Council
    Language and Gender in the Saudi Shura Council Mashael Abdulrahman Al-Tamami A thesis submitted to The University of The West of England for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy This research was sponsored by Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia The Faculty of Linguistics, University of the West of England, Bristol September 2020 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ V LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ VI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... VII ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ VIII COPYRIGHTS DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................... IX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... X CHAPTER 1 THE SAUDI CONTEXT ................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ABOUT WOMEN RIGHTS IN SAUDI ARABIA ........................... 2 1.1.1 THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ISLAM ................................................................................ 4 1.1.2
    [Show full text]