tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6445874454952390508..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Multilateralism v Bilateralism: What’s in it for international IP regulation? Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55590997453394550832018-01-14T15:25:26.119+00:002018-01-14T15:25:26.119+00:00Just keep the US and the EU out of IP chapters gen...Just keep the US and the EU out of IP chapters generally in future multilateral deals. Ghost of ACTA throws a long shadow. Their approach when combined to IP in trade agreements is appalling. Good they lost in WIPO with the Treaty for the Visually Disabled. They feel that so keenly-they wish to by pass WIPO in the future where negotiations are open for NGOs to sit in and blog about who says what.<br /><br />It is only out of sheer local shame that the EU was forced to implement last year.Treatywatchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86212986894912810502018-01-14T09:34:21.384+00:002018-01-14T09:34:21.384+00:00After reading the section headed "But what di...After reading the section headed "But what did TPP say about IP?" one could be forgiven for thinking Chapter 18 was all about patents. Whilst the IPKat can at times be very patent-centric, this write-up really doesn't give the full picture. <br /><br />All the current IP rights, including developing areas such as GIs and trade secrets, are covered fairly comprehensively, although not, in my opinion, even-handedly. In summary, what chapter 18 seeks to do is impose First World standards on the other Parties in a heavy-handed way which quite obviously favours the USA and in particular its pharma and media sectors. For example all parties would be forced to extend their period of copyright protection to the US/EU standard of lifetime plus 70 years. There are extensive provisions for the use and enforcement of TPMs and RMI (Rights Management Information). as well as mandatory safe harbour protections - something which might run counter to current EU thoughts on the subject. Within the trade mark section there are extensive provisions for "well-known" trade marks to be recognised in territories where they are not actually registered; again, a clear nod towards US global Interests. If companies such as for example, Coca-Cola or Mercedes Benz, want their trade marks to be respected in other nations, they should fork out the fees and register them there, not rely on international treaties to give them preferential rights. (the <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/supreme-court-of-india-in-prius-trade.html" rel="nofollow">Toyota Prius case</a> comes to mind) <br />And for reasons best known to the drafters, there are very detailed provisions for how to run a civil judicial regime for the benefit of claimants, with virtually no mention in the main Articles of the proposed treaty of limitations or exceptions which might favour defendants. For example, Article 18.21 'Exceptions' consists of just two lines related to a fair use exception within trade mark use. Any other references, such as they are, to what we might recognise as fair use / fair dealing exceptions are buried in the ancilliary notes and derogations. Compare this situation to a weak and non-specific Article on the Public Domain, and another on Exhaustion of rights, and you have all you need to know about whose interests TPP was intended to serve.<br />TPP is not a trade treaty, it's a piece of modern day economic imperialism with all the advantages stacked against the less wealthy nations. Let's hope that if CPTPP ever comes to fruitition (without the guiding wisdom of the USA) it does a much better job with regard to IPRs. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com