GIPI3: how do you rate?

Recently this Kat was fortunate to attend the launch of the Third Report of the Global Intellectual Property Index (GIPI) at the London office of European law firm Taylor Wessing. After a helpful introduction by team leader Roland Mallinson, there was then a lively discussion of the findings of the survey, with key team members from Taylor Wessing on hand to answer specific questions.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of GIPI, it is an evaluation of the attractiveness of 24 national jurisdictions for obtaining, exploiting, enforcing and attacking the key IP rights (trade marks, patents, copyright and designs). In a new twist, this year the survey also considers personal data requirements for the first time. The survey combines and weights 43 instrumental factors from 14,000 individual responses. It functions to give a better insight on doing business in a particular jurisdiction rather than relying on anecdotal evidence such as ‘trials of patents in Country A take years’ or ‘it is quick to register a trade mark in Country B than Country C’. In doing so, it hopes to create a melting pot of empirical evidence to encourage better laws for doing business in those jurisdictions.

In theory, five kinds of rights, across 24 jurisdictions according to 43 instrumental factors would be enough to strike fear into the hearts of most Kats. However, to their credit, the team at Taylor Wessing has produced a highly readable report. In particular, it provides a number of tables which group jurisdictions into five tiers of competitiveness for each individual right as well as an interesting commentary on significant changes since GIPI2.

The key table is:

Some important insights from this table include:
· Germany scored three 1st positions in the individual IP indices but last for the personal data index.· Russia has pulled away from the other BRIC countries.
· Common law countries made up seven of the top 11 jurisdictions.
· India ranked last overall in three of the five indices.
· Apart from Australia, all six of the top tier jurisdictions ranked consistently well for all individual IP indices except for the personal data index. This in turn raises the concern that data regimes in these countries are weighted too much against business.
In addition to the detailed discussion of the individual IP rights, some general overarching themes also emerged from the survey. These include:

  • 62% of respondents said that they had spent more time on IP issues over the last three years.
  • 60% of respondents felt that IP law needs updating to keep up with technological and online business developments.
  • Value for money is increasingly important for businesses in choosing where to litigate.
  • There are improved perceptions of EU harmonisation: 8% decrease in variance between the lowest and highest ranked EU Member States.

The IPKat says that the team at Taylor Wessing are to be congratulated for collating, analysing and presenting such an important and accessible report. He looks forward to GIPI4 to see whether the laws of individual jurisdictions have responded to the interesting questions raised in GIPI3.

Merpel wonders whether the UK could score as highly in the Eurovision Song Contest as it does in the GIPI3.
GIPI3: how do you rate? GIPI3: how do you rate? Reviewed by Catherine Lee on Sunday, May 15, 2011 Rating: 5


  1. Let's hope the respondents didn't form voting blocks, like on the Eurovision Song Contest!

    (On second thoughts, they can't have done, if the UK reached second place.)

    (On third thoughts, the electorate is not just in Europe, so perhaps we picked up some votes from other common law jurisdictions.)

  2. I doubt we would have got a vote from Qatar

  3. sorry, but the report is a bunch of *&^%$. it is biased against developing countries that dare to challenge the euro-american agenda. i do support IP but not on the terms of the west. perhaps these people would be happy if the BRIC countries started jacking up drug prices, or stopping people from showing louis vutton bags on paintings?


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.