According to a Press Release, "UK Intellectual Property Office helps tackle IP crime", the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) is playing an active part in helping the recently established Global Prosecutors' E-Crime Network (GPEN) -- which consists of a database of e-crime prosecutors, a forum for exchanging advice, and e-crime material, to overcome intellectual property crime.Right: in a new move to outwit IP criminals, international crime-fighters are to deploy the new intelligent paper-clip. Use of this device, which holds several pieces of training material together, cannot be detected over the internet.
The text of the Press Release reads, in relevant part:
Not wishing to sound cynical or curmudgeonly, the IPKat wonders (i) whether this initiative will actually achieve anything other than to create another collation of training information that has to be read, revised, updated and digested before the fight on IP crime can begin, and (ii) how on earth the measurement of the utility of this initiative is going to be measured. Merpel says, it seems to me that the IP criminals are far more successful than those who seek to track them, even though they don't have training schemes, information packs and government backing. Perhaps we should be learning from them."The UK-IPO is working in partnership with the Crown Prosecution Service in providing a portfolio of IP training material. The Network's activity will lead to more successful prosecutions in the fight to overcome the current multi billion intellectual property crime business. ...
This initiative reinforces the UK-IPO's commitment to supporting and developing a partner agency approach in the ongoing fight against IP crime. The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (recommendation 44) pointed to the need to provide more
training to the criminal courts on the complexities of IP. This partnership will mean that UK prosecutors as well as global prosecutors will have access to a broad range of IP training material".
Other GPENs here, here and here ...
New move to tackle IP crime, sort of ...
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html