Chair’S Report On APEC Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group XVI

Chair Report on APEC Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group XVI Christchurch, New Zealand 10-11 March 2003Introduction1. The sixteenth meeting of the APEC Intellectual Property Experts Group (IPEG XVI) was held in Christchurch, New Zealand from 10-11 March 2003.2. The meeting was attended by representatives from: Australia; Canada; Peoples Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Philippines; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America and Vietnam. The APEC Secretariat also attended the meeting.Agenda Item 1. Opening3. Member economies were welcomed with a Maori powhiri. The Chair welcomed participants and thanked New Zealand for hosting the meeting. New Zealand’s Associate Minister of Commerce, the Hon Judith Tizard, was invited to make an opening address. She welcomed participants to Christchurch and expressed New Zealand’s pleasure in hosting IPEG XVI and stressed the importance of IPR protection in the era of the knowledge-based economy, particularly in the area of the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore.Agenda Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda4. Australia noted that the agenda as it currently stands needs to be revised for future meetings. Grouping of issues was recommended so as to facilitate discussion on these topics and other international policy issues (for example issues relating to the Doha Round). Australia stated that it was happy to proceed with the current agenda for this meeting, but asked that a revised agenda with a new structure be available for the next meeting in Vancouver. The proposal for the revised agenda was adopted by all member economies.Agenda Item 3. Report to and Instructions from the CTI5. The APEC Secretariat made a report regarding the CTI meeting held in Chaing Rai, Thailand on February 16-17, 2003. The IPR Service Center proposal from Japan was discussed and CTI agreed to task the IPEG to study the technical feasibility of Japan’s proposal as well as Thailand’s proposal on IPR registration before reporting back to CTI 2 where a discussion from a policy perspective can be undertaken. Japan reported that it was discussed and agreed in SOM that IPEG will be tasked to study the technical aspects of the IPR Service Center proposal and the Comprehensive Strategy on IP Protection in APEC for the purpose of reporting back to CTI. 6. The Secretariat also reported on the main APEC developments of its activities since Los Cabos Ministerial and Leaders Meetings. He explained the APEC 2003 priorities agreed by SOM to deal with Counter-terrorism, Trade Facilitation and APEC contribution to WTO Doha Development Agenda.7. The Secretariat reminded the Group that the Guidebook on APEC Projects requires to establish a small Group under each forum to make comments on the Evaluation Reports. He also reminded the Group of the importance of submitting Evaluation Reports as required by the Guidebook within eight weeks of the completion of the project incorporating comments from the small group and the IPEG Chair. Korea expressed thanks to the Secretariat and suggested that a small group be formed for undertaking project evaluation. It was agreed that Japan and the USA will form the Small Group for the purpose of evaluation. The Secretariat informed about the implementation of the APEC Communications and Outreach Strategy for 2003.18. The APEC Secretariat informed that in the last CTI meeting there was an exchange of views on the US’ paper on “Leaders’ Pathfinder Statement to Implement APEC Policies on Trade and Digital Economy: Next Steps”. The Chair referred to Actions 5-8 of the Pathfinder initiative relating to the work of IPEG and suggested that this document be circulated and discussed the following day.9. New Zealand commented that its understanding was that CTI would expect IPEG to provide feedback on the Pathfinder initiative and that these comments were expected by 15 March 2003. The IPEG meeting was well-timed to feed into this process. Sixteen economies are members of the Pathfinder initiative. New Zealand drew attention to pages 5 and 6 of the Pathfinder initiative and indicated that these were areas in which the IPEG would have expertise.10. A discussion took place on the IPR Service Center. The Chair proposed that this be discussed during the following day. All member economies were in agreement. Agenda Item 4. Report on the outcome of APEC Intellectual Property Enforcement Seminar11. The USA briefed member economies on the IP enforcement seminar held in July 2002 in Los Angeles, including IP enforcement trends and how to most effectively deal with IP crimes. The need for co-operation between member’s governments in dealing with this issue was highlighted. The best method for putting together a TRIPS-based enforcement system was discussed.12. The Chair took note of the statement and thanked the USA for its contribution and indicated that enforcement will become a major issue in the future. Japan also expressed its thanks to the USA for hosting the seminar on IP enforcement.Agenda Item 5. New collective actions(1) item a: Deepening the Dialogue on Intellectual Property Policy (Lead Economy: Convenor)13. Chinese Taipei delivered a presentation on the latest developments in WTO IPR negotiations. Chinese Taipei discussed the Doha development agenda and the status of TRIPS issues that are currently on the table. Following this, public health and access to medicines, protection of geographical indications and various issues including protection of plant varieties, traditional knowledge and folklore, non-violation disputes and trade and development were discussed (see document IPEG XVI-5-1-1).14. Hong Kong, China thanked Chinese Taipei for its presentation and then gave an update of Hong Kong, China’s ideas regarding a possible mechanism for the multilateral notification and registration system of GIs. The system would involve only a formality examination of the GI subject to notification. Registration on the multilateral register would provide prima facie evidence to prove (a) ownership, (b) that the indication is within the definition of GI under Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and (c) that it is protected in the country of origin. The effect is that the three issues will be deemed to have been proved unless evidence to the contrary is produced by the other party to the proceedings. Questions relating to the applicability of the exceptions under Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement would continue to be decided by members’ domestic authority, having regard to the relevant local circumstances. The system would not deal with competing claims for GI. This would continue to be dealt with under national laws. On costs, one possible option is that the costs of operating the system should be shared between Members on the basis of the member of applications filed by each of them. HKC had given some thoughts to the estimated costs of operating such a system based on its experience of operating the Designs Registry. The initial assessment was that the costs should not be excessive.15. Canada followed with a presentation of CIPO challenges, opportunities and directions for the future (see Document IPEG XVI-5-1-2). Thailand thanked Canada for its presentation and indicated that it is also considering joining the Madrid Protocol.216. The Chair took note of the presentation and comments and encouraged other member economies to share their experiences of procedures at IP offices in an effort to encourage harmonisation and to challenge offices to perform to a higher standard. The Chair further suggested that economies could volunteer to make similar presentations at the next meeting and follow the benchmark set by CIPO.(2) item b: Support for Easy and Prompt Acquisition of Rights(i) (item b-1) Participation in International IP-related Systems (Lead Economy: USA)17. China presented a paper on its legislative work in implementing obligations under the TRIPS Agreement (see document IPEG XVI-5-2-i-1). China described the changes it has made to its copyright, trademark and patent laws to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. These changes include the expansion of scope of protection of rights under the Copyright Law, introduction of moral and property rights and clarification of further rights of performers and producers. Also included in the changes were the introduction of GIs into trademark law and the revision of their patent law to clarify the provisions for compulsory licensing, and to include offers for sale and the allowance for judicial reviews of the patent examination board decisions.18. The Chair took note of the presentation and thanked China for its information and invited member economies to share its experiences at future meetings. (ii) (item b-2-1) Establishing Internationally Harmonized IPR Systems (Lead Economy: Japan)19. Chinese Taipei briefed member economies on amendments to its patent legislation, which was promulgated on 6 February 2003 and is aimed to effectively provide international harmonization on patent related matters (see document IPEG XVI-5-2-ii-1). The major reforms related to the application procedure, patentability, disclosure of specifications, unity of invention, amendments, grounds for refusal, abolishment of the pre-grant opposition system, deletion of criminal liabilities of infringement, and adoption of a formal examination for utility applications, rather than a substantive examination.20. Korea informed the IPEG that it has been bound by the Trademark Law Treaty since February 2003, and that the Madrid Protocol will enter into force in Korea in April 2003.21. Japan gave its thanks to Chinese Taipei for its precise and comprehensive presentation. Japan outlined recent developments in its copyright law. The need has been recognised to adjust the protection period for cinematographers to be equal to that of authors, which is a lifetime plus 50 years. This amendment is to be submitted in the Spring and is noted as a positive step forward in copyright protection. New Zealand indicated that a presentation on its current IP legislative developments would be provided at the seminar on Thursday.22. The Chair thanked Chinese Taipei and Japan for their useful and valuable contributions. (iii) (item b-2-2) Standardisation of Trademark Application Form (proposed by Singapore)23. The Chair suggested that this item be revert for continued discussion at the next meeting due to the absence of Singapore. It was so adopted.(iv) (item b-2-3) Well-known Trademarks (Lead Economy: Thailand)24. Thailand reported on the protection of well-known trademarks (see document IPEG XVI-5-2-ii- 2) and posed several questions to member economies for consideration:3 “ Is there a definition or substantive criterion of well-known marks in each economy’s trademark law?”  “Is there a judicial interpretation of the term ‘well known mark’?” and  “Are there administrative guidelines on the interpretation of the term ‘well known mark’?”Thailand welcomed any suggestions or questions regarding the results given in the paper. Japan commented that revised comments had been submitted to Thailand and requested that the paper be revised to include those comments.25. The Chair took note of the progress made by Thailand and asked that all members check the report for further amendments or answers that needed updating before sending all updates and amendments to Thailand for consolidation and report its progress at the next meeting. (v) (item b-3) Cooperation on Searches and Examinations (Lead Economy: Japan)26. The Chair offered for discussion the topic of searching techniques between languages. Economies were invited to share their searching techniques and it was suggested there was a need for a searching method to incorporate several languages.27. Japan advised that it has an automatic translation system to translate documents in Japanese into English. Australia indicated its ongoing interest in search and examination procedures and that they are interested in looking at ways of utilizing searches from other economies. Australia indicated that there are benefits to be gained for users of the patent system in reducing both the re-searching and re-examination of applications. It was noted that the language barrier was a hurdle, but the problem needs to be thought about in a broader sense.28. The Chair thanked Australia for its contribution and agreed that the issue needs to be addressed in a broader sense. He indicated that more input was needed from other economies and invited further comments from the USA.29. The USA indicated it was also interested in using searches performed by other economies. It informed the meeting that negotiations are currently under way with a number of national and regional patent offices to ascertain whether search results can be exchanged and used to avoid duplication of effort. Five hundred applications from the EPO and 25 applications from JPO are being sampled to see how search results may be effectively utilized by search exchange partners. The USA then reiterated that there are economic and time savings to be gained if duplication of search could be reduced.30. The Chair inquired of the USA the percentage of these sample files that were PCT applications. The USA replied that all applications in the sample were Paris route based national applications.31. The Chair took note of comments made by the USA and Australia and indicated it would be desirable to continue discussion on this topic at a later stage. (3) item c: Electronic Processing of IPR-related Procedures(i) (item c-1) Electronic Filing Systems (Lead Economy: USA)32. Australia briefed member economies on its current position with regard to its electronic filing. 45% of all trademark applications are now being filed online. A certain percentage of these come through the Madrid Protocol, to which Australia has been a party since July 2002. Both standard and innovation patents (not PCT) can now be filed online and are processed electronically up until the examination stage. Australia offered to brief any member economies interested in the systems and processes involved in setting up online systems. Australia also noted that electronic filing of PCT applications should be possible within the next three months and that business-to-business electronic data exchange with patent4 attorney firms should be in place by the end of 2003. The Chair thanked Australia and invited member economies to comment.33. The USA asked Australia to define an “innovation patent.” Australia replied that an innovation patent had a more limited lifetime (eight years) and is also narrower in scope than a standard patent. It is similar to the utility model patents available in some economies. Innovation patents are also only subjected to substantive examination on request or if infringement proceedings are to be instituted. 34. The USA asked Australia about the code being used for filing PCT applications electronically, and if it is WIPO consistent. Australia replied that it is WIPO consistent and the major aspect being worked on is security, which may not be of use for other economies, but the design layer could be shared and incorporated into other economies’ systems.35. Japan stated it hopes to allow electronic filing of PCT applications by 2004. Japan began electronic filing in 1990 and gave two advise. The first was that there would be more amounts of paper used in your Office than you expected and second was that cost for computer system revision due to the legal changes such as patent regulation, was not negligible. However, Japan’s belief was that the benefits of electronic filing outweighed these factors.36. New Zealand stated it had provided for electronic filing of trademark applications for the past six months. Over 50% of all applications are now filed online and financial transactions by credit card and direct debit are also now conducted online. Testing of business-to-business electronic filing by patent attorneys is also under way and once in place should increase electronic filing by another 20%. Online renewals are also now available and levels and currently make up 30% of all renewals.37. The Chair indicated that 50% was an excellent result after only six months in operation. Hong Kong, China then described its online trade mark search system, which increases access hours for customers and is free of charge to all customers and the public. This system has a Chinese/English interface and is part of a project to promote e-business. When the projected is completed in 2004, the public will be able to search the databases of Hong Kong trade marks, patents and registered designs online; file applications and check for statutory advertisements for new applications for registration of intellectual property rights on the Internet.38. Korea commented that it currently has 83% of applications filed online, and that it is aiming for 90% by the end of the year. Individual applicants using online filing are lower (30%). Korea operates a “Help Desk for e-filing” to help individual applicants with e-filing. Korea is also considering to raising the price of hard-copy filing to encourage e-filing. Canada drew attention to the WIPO survey that will be conducted shortly under the auspices of the WIPO Standing Committee on Trademarks, Designs and Geographical Indications and suggested that this survey would be a useful basis for an exchange of views and experiences at a future IPEG meeting.39. Chinese Taipei asked member economies how technology would cope with new trends in trademarks, such as smell and sound marks or the patenting of organisms. It questioned whether graphic descriptions of smells were too subjective. It thought that numbering for colours would be satisfactory if there was a consistent mathematical procedure, however this may raise an issue with marks being theoretically generated not designed. The USA indicated that if a colour is representing a service it does not matter how it is generated. 40. The USA continued that currently all colour trademarks were identified using descriptive language or a numbering system such as, “Pantone” and noted that recording smells may be difficult but is also done by descriptive language. The US will begin taking electronic colour drawings in November of this year. It The US mentioned micro organism deposits are required for patenting. Australia then indicated that smells and colours could be identified with a written description when filing online. Hong Kong, China indicated that smells and sounds are currently unregistrable in Hong Kong, China but will become registrable under the new trade mark law which will be implemented in April. Under the new law, trade marks still5 need to be capable of being represented graphically in order to be registrable. Japan indicated that they currently process hundreds of colour mark applications online. Thailand commented that the issue of smell marks was very interesting and noted that further information could be obtained from OHIM (Alicante) who have begun registering smell marks as European Community Trademarks.41. The Chair commented that technology would be very advanced in 30 years’ time but that it may also be prudent to keep a hard copy. There was a need for a balance to be found between hard copy and e-filing and discussion should be continued on this topic and also concerning electronic filing of PCT applications. 42. The Chair noted economies’ comments and indicated that the survey results should be looked at in a future meeting. (ii) (item c-2) Dissemination of Information by Electronic Means (Lead Economy: Australia) 43. Australia briefed member economies on documents that have been uploaded to the IPEG website. The desirability of maintaining current information regarding members was noted and Australia encouraged members to contact the website manager if they had any problems changing information.44. Japan noted that the old information of the IPEG provided by JPO homepage would be deleted and asked member economies to contact them with any concerns. Mexico then stated that new links have been uploaded onto the IPEG website for Mexico.45. The Chair took note of the above statements and thanked Australia, Japan and Mexico for their comments and urged all economies to update their information and made report at the next meeting.(4) item d: Appropriate Protection of IPR in New Fields(i) (item d-1): Protection for Biotechnology and Computer-related Inventions (Lead Economy: USA)46. Chinese Taipei presented a paper on the biotech medical chemistry traditional Chinese medicine database. Major features of the database were described: exploring the development process of important technologies, assisting patent examiners in finding prior art, and helping industries on drafting research direction by avoiding overlaps of technology. (See document IPEG XVI-5-4-i-1.)47. The Chair thanked Chinese Taipei for its contribution and encouraged all participants to think of ways of improving their procedures. To be commensurate with the future development in this area, the Chair encouraged all member economies to make similar presentations at future meetings.(ii) (item d-2): Protection for Geographical Indications (Lead Economy: Mexico)48. Mexico made a presentation on the snapshot list of domestic GIs and examples protected by eight member economies, and urged all member economies to send in updated responses. Likewise, it also reported on the Geographical Indications Questionnaire where Papua New Guinea sent to Mexico its response and Chinese Taipei updated its information. (see document IPEG XVI-5-4-ii-2) 49. Thailand voiced its apologies to Mexico for its lack of response. New Zealand noted that it would send updated information to Mexico to clarify its previous answers to the survey. The Philippines stated that it has submitted updated survey answers and mentioned it provides GI protection within its current legal structure but that there is no separate register for GIs in its country. With respect to GI snapshots, the Philippines handed its response to both Mexico6 and the Chair. Australia clarified that it does provide GI protection for all products but that only wine and spirit GIs can be registered. Chinese Taipei thanked Mexico for its comments and referred to examples given to ask what the criteria are for a product to have a GI. 50. The Chair invited all economies to report on their GI updates and the item would be reverted for discussion in the future. The Chair also mentioned that more action would need to be considered regarding registration. The Chair drew attention to the member economies that had not completed the survey and urged them to do so.51. The Chair invited Australia to brief members on training workshops on IPR and GIs (see document IPEG XVI-5-4-ii-3). Australia indicated a change of date in the document provided. The Bangkok seminar is to be conducted on 13-14 May 2003, not 14-15 April 2003 as recorded on page 1 of the document. The workshop to be held in Beijing will take place 10-11 April 2003. Australia made mention of the presentation by Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong, China and gave its thanks. Australia indicated its concerns regarding the EU position in the Doha Round on GIs extension and reference was made to Hong Kong China’s earlier proposal on the wine and spirit GIs register. Australia’s preliminary view was that this proposal is overly complex and underestimates the numbers of GIs that may be entered on the multilateral register.52. New Zealand gave its support to comments made by Australia and noted the usefulness of the presentation by Chinese Taipei. Concern was shown over the push to extend GI protection to products other than wines and spirits under Article 23 of TRIPS agreement and the format of a multilateral register for wines and spirits. Hong Kong, China thanked Australia and New Zealand for its comments on its proposal and stated that the proposal is still in the draft stages and further ideas were welcome.53. Thailand commented that its GI legislation is pending in the Senate as it is difficult to justify passing the law when there are no GIs to protect. A solution to this problem is needed. Thailand echoed China’s concern and agreed that a combined front for GI protection is unlikely. 54. The Chair then indicated a special session at the TRIPS Council regarding GIs is to be held in April with the next step being the establishment of a multilateral register. Economies were encouraged to look into the implications of this issue. Chinese Taipei noted that the next meeting is in July and an IPEG decision should be made before the WTO meeting in Cancun in September 2003.55. China understood the positions of Chinese Taipei and expressed its concern that not all economies were present and therefore a general APEC view could not be formed. China suggested a formal decision would need to be made in Geneva rather than at the IPEG meeting. Thailand supports China and stressed that an allied front on GIs may not be appropriate in APEC.56. The Chair thanked the speakers and took note of all the statements made by member economies and the Chair encouraged economies to contribute further about this issue at future meetings.(iii) (item d-3): Electronic Commerce (Lead Economy: Australia) 57. The Chair invited all member economies with experience in this field to share their knowledge regarding online payments, e-filing, e-signatures and other electronic transactions at future meetings.(iv) (item d-4): Traditional Knowledge and Folklore58. Australia reported on recent developments in relation to traditional knowledge and folklore (document IPEG XVI –5-4-iv-1). Reference was made to progress made by WIPO IGC and7 the development of some practical tools for addressing concerns in this area. The South Pacific Model Law was described and Australia stated it is currently exploring ways to give indigenous communities a means to prevent unauthorised and derogatory treatment of works that embody community images or knowledge.59. Thailand expressed thanks to Australia for its presentation. Thailand indicated it had started collecting traditional knowledge, initially by the Ministry of Agriculture, and now the IP Office, and is issuing certificates of traditional knowledge.60. New Zealand brought to the attention of the IPEG the new New Zealand Trade Marks Act 2002. This Act contains provisions for marks containing Maori imagery to be referred to a Maori Advisory Committee for consideration. New Zealand also stated it is available to answer any questions from member economies. New Zealand is also currently involved in a Treaty of Waitangi claim regarding indigenous flora and fauna and is available for any questions regarding this claim. (5) item e: Cooperation for Improvements to the Operation of IP Systems (Lead Economy: Korea)61. Korea presented a status report on technical co-operation for the improvement of IP automation systems. This presentation outlined the objectives of KIPO in bridging the widening digital divide, building a cost-effective scheme and facilitating the implementation of integrated IP automation. Implementation plans are discussed further within the document (IPEG XVI-5-5-1a). Korea also submitted to the approval of the Group the project proposal “IPEG Technical Cooperation Project of IP Automation in APEC Region (Phase 2/3).62. Chinese Taipei briefed member economies on its TIPOnet project and the planned IP automation co-operation between KIPO and TIPO (see document IPEG XVI-5-5-3). KIPO has selected Chinese Taipei for the APEC ISP consultancy project in 2003. The assistance of KIPO will be useful in helping to modify TIPO’s Information Strategy Planning. 63. The Chair thanked Korea and Chinese Taipei for their presentations and invited members’ comments following the presentation from Chinese Taipei. Korea proposed to shorten its explanation by not completing the second presentation (see document IPEG XVI-5-5-2) but invites questions on both presentations.64. Thailand pointed out an error in its Proposal for Best Practices of Industrial Property Application (patents, designs and trademarks) on the second page. The phrase “equal opposition” needs to be amended to read “equal opportunity.” A brief outline of the proposal (see document IPEG XVI-5-5-4) was given and the issue of technology transfer in developing economies noted. Thailand would like to hear comments and proposals before the next meeting and Thailand would like to propose a project at the next IPEG meeting in July. Thailand also stated that the technology gap is a problem for developing economies and would like others to recognise this. Solutions and suggestions are asked for at the next meeting. The Chair thanked Thailand for its comments and reiterated the need for follow up at the next meeting.65. Mexico commented on Korea’s project proposal and would like to offer to be an additional economy to receive help from Korea. The APEC Secretariat noted that the format of the proposal needs to be changed to the new APEC Guidebook format. The Secretariat also commented on the high cost of the Korean project. The Secretariat agreed with the comment made that the outcome should benefit the most economies from this project as possible.66. Korea stated that there would be no problem in changing the format of its proposal. The cost of the project is recognised as a problem and in regard to the Secretariat’s last comment the project will be representative of the other economies. Korea then thanked Mexico for its interest and will consider its support for the project.67. In response to the presentation by Thailand, China asked how member economies could address the challenge by overcoming the technology gap. Member economies were of view8 that Thailand has made a positive step forward and suggested that APEC economies take a positive step forward from Geneva and look for improvements.68. The Chair took note of all the statements made by member economies and encouraged members to express ideas freely so as to come up with an agenda for submitting further discussions.(6) item f: Establishing Effective Systems for IPR Enforcement (Lead Economies: Australia, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines and Thailand) (i) (item f-general) 69. Thailand made a presentation on enforcement initiated under “The Memorandum of Understanding on the Cooperation of Relevant Government Agencies on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPEG XVI-5-6-i-3). The report pointed to difficulties (along with possible solutions) to enforcing IPRs in a situation where right holders might be reluctant to enforce its rights and where enforcement agencies might be faced by mixed incentives. 70. China made a presentation and delivered a paper on its IPR enforcement efforts (IPEG XVI- 5-6-i-1). In the paper, China introduced its IP enforcement system, which is enforced by the administrative and judicial traditions and characterized by its dual system of enforcement. China also introduced its actions taken by the Chinese government in regulating the IP enforcement. 71. Vietnam presented a proposal for a project on an “APEC Training Programme on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for APEC Developing Member Economies” (IPEG XVI-5-6-i-2). Vietnam noted that the proposal was welcomed and supported by SOM I in Chang Rai. Following a question raised by Australia, Vietnam confirmed that the target group for the project was IP-related officials broadly involved in enforcement. Thailand noted that it was important to carefully specify the target group. Japan suggested that the best speakers on enforcement issues were business people. Vietnam agreed to take these suggestions into careful consideration in developing the programme.72. Chinese Taipei drew attention to the 2002 TIPO enforcement report, which was circulated among member economies for information. The Chair and the United States drew attention to the importance of continuing discussions on enforcement issues given the seriousness of the issues involved.73. The Chair took note of the suggestions made by Australia, Thailand and Japan. He suggested that Vietnam further tune its first proposal by incorporating in it these suggestions.74. A discussion followed on the funding situation for all IPEG proposals. It was agreed that all three IPEG funding proposals would be submitted to the CTI and BMC and that project sponsors should coordinate with their respective CTI representatives to seek to gain approval for these proposals and future ones.(ii) (item f-1) Establishment of Enforcement Guidelines75. Japan reported on its illustrative practices of enforcement of industrial property rights and amendments made. (IPEG XVI-5-6-ii-1) The US thanked Japan and encouraged other economies to make presentations on illustrative practices. Mexico thanked Japan and welcomed the document as a guide for member economies.76. The IPEG adopted the document and member economies congratulated Japan on the work done. The Chair asked the group to take account of guidelines and prepare its own guidelines, perhaps to be included in Australia’s toolkit. The Chair encouraged member economies to compile available information and suggested the US may be available to give technical assistance.9(iii) (item f-2) Exchange of Information Concerning IPR Infringement77. The Philippines advised that only Japan and US have provided comments on the survey questionnaire. (IPEG XVI-5-6-iii-1) The USA thanked Philippines and advised it is happy with the format of the questionnaire. Australia noted comments provided last year and it is also happy with the format of the questionnaire.78. In reaction to the inquiry by New Zealand, the Philippines advised that the survey is now in its final form unless some members would wish to submit further or additional comments. 79. The Chair took note of the progress report made by the Philippines and asked that economies provide electronic response on the survey by 31 May so that the Philippines can make a report for discussion at the July meeting in Vancouver. The Chair requested the Secretariat to send the questionnaire to the IPEG Contact Points considering that not all contact points were present at the meeting. (iv) (item f-3) Cooperation with other fora / authorities80. The Chair noted that the revised IPR Service Center (Christchurch) document has been circulated and discussed over the last day, with discussion remaining on the bracketed items, in particular the wording “will/should/may”.81. Canada thanked Japan for its work, and supports “should”. The US prefers “will or should” and would like proposal to be finalised. The US noted that Japan has worked very hard and asked that any disagreement be resolved at a higher level.82. New Zealand thanked Japan and noted it could support any of the options, although it has a preference for “will” or “should” to strengthen the proposal, and noted that membership of APEC itself is voluntary. Australia expressed its gratitude to the enormous work done by Japan, and thanked US for its flexibility. Australia prefers “should” or “will”, as the action is of a collective nature, as well as for the reasons stated by New Zealand.83. Japan advised it prefers “will” and agreed the need to finalise the proposal and Japanese TILF project proposal regarding the establishment of IPR Service Centers at the earliest. Vietnam thanked Japan for its hard work and confirmed it supports the proposal. Mexico thanked Japan for its big efforts for taking into account members’ comments and also supported such proposal. Hong Kong, China thanked Japan for its hard work in preparing the proposal and coming up with the Christchurch draft. Hong Kong, China agrees with “will” to show commitment by member economies. 84. China drew economies’ attention to the fact that the word “should” has been newly raised at this meeting, and this needs further discussion with its capital and implementing authorities. It noted that it needs to go back to its capital before making a final decision, although it has a preference for “may” as this indicates the voluntary nature of APEC initiatives. China requested some time to meet and come to a consensus. Vietnam echoed with China’s concern and thought “may” will be the appropriate wording here.85. The US acknowledged that China’s concerns have been known for some time, however, as the issue is a political point, and not a technical one, it is time to move the discussion to CTI.86. Canada suggested that the text should go forward with bracketed remarks for CTI to decide. The Canadian suggestion was echoed by Thailand, the United States, Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, China and Japan who agreed that it was time to move this issue up to CTI, having seen that this proposal has been tabled for discussion over one and half years. Thailand offered to work with Japan on an example service center, if required.1087. The APEC Secretariat noted that work for this proposal has been discussed for some time and recommended that if IPEG has reached technical agreement, the document should be submitted to CTI for decision.88. The Chair noted the contributions made by member economies to Japanese proposal. He noted that the language in brackets involves a matter of policy in lieu of technicality and that it should be submitted to CTI for further discussions. Member economies should consult with their CTI delegates at the same time. The Chair proposed that he would send a communiqué of revised version (Christchurch) with member economies’ comments to the Chair of CTI, highlighting the discrepancies.89. Australia supported the Chair’s proposals and proposed that it be noted in the minutes that all economies except one were comfortable with forwarding text to CTI. Thailand asked that it be noted in the communiqué that China’s concerns, which are valid, are emphasised.90. The Chair, after having heard all comments, proposed that what has been discussed will be submitted to CTI in his own capacity as the Chair. Comments made by economies will be sent to CTI Chair as soon as possible, explaining the process so far, attaching the Christchurch version and highlighting where there is lack of consensus. With regard to the TILF project, Japan explained the outline of the project proposal and the proposal was warmly welcomed by the floor. The Chair proposed that Japan submit this for discussion and approval at CTI. The Chair will include the project as part of the communiqué to the CTI Chair.(v) (item f – other)91. Australia reported on developments to in implementing the APEC IP Toolkit (document IPEG XVI-5-6-v-1), which is a framework agreed by APEC in 2002 for IPEG-related enforcement activities, emphasizing training, guides/publications, public awareness and education. Australia emphasized that it did not have exclusive ownership of the Toolkit and urged other economies to come forward with projects which could be integrated into the Toolkit. Australia’s Toolkit projects currently under consideration included a training workshop on IP rights enforcement and border control, an IPEG database on enforcement activities (in conjunction with Hong Kong, China), and a guide for digital rights management.92. Australia presented the proposed IPEG database on IPR enforcement activities (referred to above), an Australian/Hong Kong, China contribution to the APEC IP toolkit. IP Australia is working on a prototype of the database. Member economies were invited to suggest to Australia other important links to the database. Once the site is developed, involvement of all economies in inputting data will be important. (See document IPEG XVI-5-6-v-2.) The USA offered to share its experience in developing an IPR database domestically with Australia.93. Hong Kong, China gave a presentation on some possible public awareness and education materials which may be included in the APEC IP Toolkit. (document IPEG XVI-5-6-v-3). This includes a web based teaching kit, 3D computer game APAT (anti-piracy and tactics), and a comic book and series.94. Japan reported on three measures regarding raising public awareness - the Internet content “Fake Town” which was a game to educate consumers about counterfeiting, the cartoon book “No Fakes” and pamphlet (circulated at the meeting).95. Australia suggested that the IP toolkit remain a standing agenda item to encourage member economies to contribute.96. The Chair took note of the report and encouraged economies to share information and communicate to Australia any comments on the toolkit.97. Canada requested that the report reflect their understanding that the declaration was illustrative, non-binding, and simply encouraged APEC economies to make best efforts to11 issue and implement policies on proper use of computer software in accordance with the government machinery of each economy.(7) item g: Promoting IP Asset Management in APEC Economies (Lead Economy: USA)98. USA presented a proposal relating to the government use of computer software (IPEG XVI 5- 7-1). The USA suggested that the agenda be revised to include transparency and Pathfinder initiatives. Canada, Thailand, Mexico and Japan thanked the USA and acknowledged its work to date. Japan also thanked the USA and noted its interest in continuing to contribute in this area. Regarding the Pathfinder initiative, Japan noted this is a positive and interesting proposal, especially item 6.99. Chinese Taipei joined Canada and Japan in thanking USA for its efforts. They noted that the government had a dual role as the largest user of software and as the protector of IP rights. Government agencies should therefore take the lead, depending on financial resources. Chinese Taipei also recommended that the areas of anti-trust, fair use and fair price should be added to the agenda at future meetings. Chinese Taipei also noted that by 2004, 100% of the software used by the government would be legal software.100. The IPEG adopted the USA draft proposal on the Joint Declaration regarding Government Use of Computer Software, which will be submitted to CTI. With regard to the Pathfinder initiative and transparency standards, the Chair suggested this be put on the agenda for future meetings.101. The USA questioned whether it would be appropriate to add an action item to the agenda where member economies would provide information on developments with regard to accession to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (the “Internet treaties”).102. China noted that its copyright law is compliant with TRIPS Agreement. It would be premature to add the status of accession to the Internet Treaties as an agenda item. However, China agreed with Chinese Taipei’s suggestion for incorporating into agenda items relating to anti- trust, fair use and fair price.103. New Zealand agreed that it would be premature to add Internet treaties as an agenda item at this stage. New Zealand would most likely make its legislation consistent with the Internet treaties, but no decision has been made to accede and New Zealand does not wish the agenda to imply that it is inevitable that member economies will accede. New Zealand noted its IP legislation is TRIPS-compliant. New Zealand noted it is happy to support the US declaration as it stands and noted that piracy is a stand-alone issue, and anti-trust and other issues should be dealt with separately.104. Australia gave its support for the US proposal as worded. As far as the Internet treaties are concerned, the Australian government is committed to taking steps to allow accession, however accession is subject to Parliamentary approval.105. Thailand commented that its IPO is keen to accede, but it is up to the government to make a decision. Mexico as previously mentioned noted it deposited its instrument of ratification to the WCT on May 18, 2000, and the Treaty entered into force on March 1, 2002. Mexico deposited its instrument of ratification with the WPPT on November 17, 1999, and the Treaty entered into force on May 20, 2002.106. The Chair toke note of member economies’ comments and suggested it would be premature for an agenda item to be added on members’ progress towards acceding to the Internet Treaties. With regard to transparency and items 5-8 of the Pathfinder initiative, the Chair suggested they be put on the draft agenda for discussion at future meetings. (8) item h: Raising Public Awareness (Lead Economies: Australia, Hong Kong, China)12107. Australia made a presentation on the implementation of the APEC TILF project on public awareness (IPEG XVI-5-8-1), noting that it is on track for completion by November 2003. Vietnam expressed thanks to Australia for its support and assistance and noted the value of the project for the private sector in Vietnam. Mexico noted IMPI initiatives during 2002 resulted in 400 activities for raising public awareness, including workshops, seminars and shows.108. Japan noted JPO provide many training textbooks in English on the website http://www.apic.jiii.or.jp/facility/text.htm. Thailand noted its continuing push to raise public awareness, including seminars, exhibitions, road trips, televised concerts, design awards, IP awards and providing professors for lectures at Universities to encourage IP as a career choice. Thailand drew attention to its website, www.thailand.com.109. China noted its big national campaign devoted to raising public awareness, together with bilateral projects, training, and seminars. China mentioned that the upcoming WIPO Summit is an example of its commitment to raising public awareness.110. The Philippines commented that its activities are similar to those already described, with the website, http//:ipophil.gov.ph, containing fully downloadable information including forms and fees, as one of the major vehicles for information dissemination. A searchable trademark database plus information on choosing a trademark have contributed to the increase in the use of trademarks such that the volume of local applications is now equal to foreign applications. Furthermore, awareness is developed through essay-writing and painting contests where the winners receive the certificate of copyright as evidence of their IPR. Thus, the Philippines makes IP tangible.111. Chinese Taipei mentioned its three policies – “no sale”, “no buy”, “no produce” on its national campaign to deal with piracy through promoting public awareness programs. Hong Kong, China noted its “no fakes” and “I Pledge” initiatives.112. The Chair took note of the above statements made by member economies and proposed that it be revert for continued discussion at future meetings.(9) item i: Facilitation of Technology Transfer through Ensuring of IP Protection (Lead Economies: Australia and Japan113. Japan gave an example of brokering IP assets, a licensing seminar and the licensing fair Optimal 2003, in Singapore in March. Thailand requested a copy of papers from the Optimal Seminar.Agenda Item 6. Other Business(1) Other Issues114. Japan made a presentation on “Comprehensive strategy on IP protection in APEC”. Japan stressed that, as was agreed in SOM I, this issue should be decided in SOM and CTI with necessary technical input from IPEG. The group welcomed the general idea of preparing a package for highlighting the importance of IP protection, especially implementation and enforcement activities in the lead up to the APEC Ministerial and Leaders meeting in Thailand this year. It was decided that Japan should get more inputs to enrich the content of the package from the member economies intersessionally and a detailed proposal will be introduced in the next IPEG meeting.115. Thailand welcomed the initiative from Japan and agreed in principle with the proposal, but noted that details needed to be worked through. The USA recommended that Japan ask for comments before the next meeting to speed the process up. China noted there was some overlap with other projects and sought clarification.13116. The Chair took note of the Japanese presentation and proposed that Japan get more technical input to enrich the content of the package from the member economies intersessionally and a detailed proposal will be introduced in the next IPEG meeting. Agenda Item 7. Document Access117. It was agreed that all documents be granted “unrestricted” status.Agenda Item 8. Future Meetings118. Canada thanked New Zealand for organising the meeting and offered to host the IPEG XVII meeting in Vancouver from 8-11 July 2003 at the Fairmont Hotel. The meeting will be held on 8-9 July 2003 followed by a seminar on IP management on 10 July 2003 and a field trip on 11 July 2003. Details will be made available on the CIPO web site sometime in April 2003.119. The Chair extended his heartfelt appreciation to Canada for its excellent arrangements and hospitality and looks forward to attending the meeting in Vancouver.Agenda Item 9. Report to the Next CTI120. The Chair will report to the next CTI’s meeting the result of the group discussion at the meeting, in particular, on the interrelationship between the future work of the IPEG and the Pathfinder Initiative (Actions 5-8) as proposed by the USA.14

Chair’S Report On APEC Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group XVI

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support