INTA
Trade agreements Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
After two years of negotiations, the final text of ACTA was released in early 2011, and eight of the 11 negotiating countries signed the trade agreement on October 1, 2011, at a ceremony in Japan. The EU, Switzerland and Mexico have yet to sign ACTA, which is still going through internal procedures in those jurisdictions. Controversies and questions about ACTA remain, particularly in the EU, where ACTA must be signed by the EU Council, approved by a majority vote in the European Parliament and adopted by each of the 27 EU member states. Despite efforts by the European Commission to clear up misunderstandings and rebut criticisms of ACTA, concerns remain in some quarters about the added value of ACTA, its effect on fundamental rights and data privacy, and the alignment of ACTA with the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and EU law.
INTA continues to support ACTA and, in
global fight against counterfeiting and piracy. INTA will also work with other committed organisations in Mexico and Switzerland to secure ACTA’s adoption.
Free trade agreements
There was progress in 2011 on the negotiation of free trade agreements (FTAs). In the US, FTAs with Colombia, Korea and Panama, pending in US Congress since 2007, received congressional approval in October 2011. Significant IP provisions that were negotiated into these FTAs reemphasise the need for full implementation of TRIPS, raise the level of protection and enforcement globally and ensure that protection keeps pace with the rapid changes in technology.
INTA supported passage of these agreements in US Congress and called on the political parties to commit to providing a broad scope of protection for trademarks, including well-known marks, certification marks and non-traditional marks. These agreements also eliminate administrative requirements that create obstacles for trademark owners, including the requirement of recording
serves as the basis for its advocacy. For example, in recent negotiations between Australia and India on a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, INTA provided comments highlighting the need to expand the trademark section in that agreement.
The Internet ICANN’s new gTLD programme
In June 2011, following several years of discussion, ICANN formally approved its plan for an unlimited expansion of the number of gTLDs, such as .com or .org, in the Internet’s domain name system. ICANN began accepting applications for new gTLDs on January 12, 2012, and the application window period will close on April 12, 2012.
The proposed expansion of the domain name system to include almost any word, in any language, carries wide-ranging implications for business, governments, non-profit organisations, consumers and Internet users. For brand owners, the introduction of new Internet names creates opportunities, risks and costs. Trademark owners face two largely independent decisions: whether to apply to operate their own gTLD (whether reflecting their brand, or some other term related to their business); and how to protect their brands defensively in the new gTLDs that are approved by ICANN.
THERE ARE ALSO DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINA, WHERE IMPORTANT TRADEMARK POLICIES ARE BEING CONSIDERED THAT WILL AFFECT HOW TRADEMARK OWNERS REGISTER AND PROTECT THEIR MARKS IN THAT JURISDICTION.
While INTA and other IP organisations worked successfully to promote new consumer and trademark protections in the proposed expansion, ICANN did not accept, or cut back, some of those proposals. It remains to be seen whether new gTLDs will adequately protect trademarks and lead to meaningful choices for users without undermining consumer trust in the Internet.
US rogue websites legislation
Counterfeiting and piracy on the Internet have become one of the most challenging issues for rights holders. According to a January 2011 study by MarkMonitor, rogue websites generate more than 53 billion visits per year.
coordination with other business groups, has demonstrated industry-wide support for ACTA and for those countries that have brought the fight against counterfeiting and piracy to a higher level. INTA and more than 20 associations in Europe will continue their collective advocacy efforts to ensure that the EU continues to be a major player in the
trademark licences as a prerequisite for establishing licence validity or for asserting any trademark rights.
Te increase in FTAs provides trademark owners with opportunities to secure additional protections and to harmonise procedures. INTA’s Model FTA, which was approved by the association’s board of directors in May 2011,
22 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012
This problem does not have one clear solution and various initiatives must be undertaken and evaluated. The US has taken one of the more aggressive approaches to combating rogue websites by introducing legislation that would allow action against foreign infringing websites that currently fall outside of the jurisdiction of US law enforcement measures.
The Preventing Real Online Threats to
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271