Securitisation of IP rights - an update

Has it really gone all quiet on the IP securitisation front? After the flurry of activity at the beginning of the year (see IPKat posts here and here), and not a little controversy, readers may have felt that everyone is now sleeping soundly and that the problem of striking a balance between the protection of lenders who take IP security for their loans, and IP owners/licensees whose interests in using the IP must be taken care of, has simply evaporated - if there ever was a problem.

Right: the IPKat keeps a watchful eye on his collateralised IP rights

But things have been happening behind the scenes. Last month the International Trademark Association, a body that represents trade mark owners' interests, published its own lengthy and carefully thought-out thought-out position paper, Recordal of Security Interests in Trademarks. Also, following the January Colloquium in Vienna at which it at one time seemed that war was about to break out, UNICTRAL is now working closely with an ad hoc group of concerned IP experts, coordinated by Lorin Brennan (Gray Matter) with assistance from too many organisations and individuals to mention conveniently here, to finalise a note on future work that remains to be done before UNCITRAL's Legislative Guide can come to fruition. The IPKat just wants to say "well done" to the many individuals who, working on their respective sides, have taken such a constructive part in improving the economic environment for IP-based borrowers and lenders alike.

Sears' giant IP securitisation here
More on IP securitisation here and here
Securitisation of IP rights - an update Securitisation of IP rights  -  an update Reviewed by Jeremy on Saturday, April 21, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Just as a matter of clarification, the "position paper" published by INTA last month is actually a Board Resolution of INTA's Board of Directors, passed on March 21, 2007, pursuant to a request for action by INTA's Security Interests Subcommittee, which I have the honor of chairing. The purpose of the resolution is to communicate INTA's views regarding "best practices" for recordal of security interests. That being said, I would like to thank the IPKat for characterizing our small contribution to this issue as "carefully thought-out."


    Thilo C. Agthe

  2. Thilo - thanks for your clarification.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.