Thursday, 16 July 2015

Consumidores colombianos empiezan a preferir menos marcas comerciales

De acuerdo a un análisis realizado por Nielsen, que evaluó el comportamiento de las marcas privadas en los hogares colombianos, el 70 % de los hogares colombianos compran productos de marcas privadas o propias.

 

Los colombianos compran productos de marcas privadas en promedio cada 21 días, siendo la clase alta la que lo hace con mayor frecuencia, mientras que las marcas comerciales llegan al 92% de los hogares en promedio cada 10 días.

 

El estudio identificó 2 variables que pesan en el momento de decidir comprar Marcas Privadas por parte de los hogares:

 

1.       La primera es el ahorro que se puede obtener al encontrar precios más bajos y

2.       La segunda, es que el consumidor encuentre un producto que realmente le guste por el que está dispuesto a pagar incluso un poco más.

 

De acuerdo al Reporte Global de Nielsen, la Marca Privada representa a nivel global el 16,5% de las ventas.

 

El liderato del ranking de ventas de productos de Marcas Privadas lo tiene Suiza, con un 45%. En Latinoamérica el líder en ventas es Colombia con el 15%, aunque se registran crecimientos en todos los países medidos por Nielsen en este reporte (Argentina, Chile, Brasil, México, Venezuela, Perú).

 

En Europa las Marcas Privadas o Propias tienen una participación del mercado del 29,5% y en Norteamérica es del 17.4%. 

 

Más información aquí y aquí.



Monday, 13 July 2015

China and the Latin American Market

Many in the IP-addicted community, and several others looking East most of the time have been and are used to see China and IP as a difficult marriage in a game of endless catch-up: domestic regulations striving to meet international standards, drafting and redrafting laws and regulations, complying with Western standards and accumulating enormous backlogs, breaking IP filing records, leading in counterfeiting and piracy world records, showing impressive recovery and determination, and occasionally falling behind again.

Since the “reform and opening up” policy initiated by the visionary Deng Xiaoping of 1978, the patent and the trademark laws alone went through a total eight amendments while the Central Government started including IP in every agenda of nearly every quinquennial plan until when in 2008 the most ambitious, aggressive and long reaching IP plan was enacted and pointed at reaching unprecedented goals by 2020.  Targets were and remain enforcement, standards, domestic innovation, government procurement and more.
Image result for chinadragon
The same people, whom, as me, have acknowledged the heroic and speedily race of the dragon in building muscle, recently discovered a more subtle tone to the roar: the role of China in international, multi- and bilateral negotiations on IPRs.  The undisputed role as factory of the World for years, as benchmark, as dealmaker- and breaker, has now become a rather vocal presence also in negotiations on IP protection and its enforcement, and in trade agreements.

China’s pragmatic approach to the international chessboard of trade has made another move as it became clear how the country would steer into the direction of securing resources and economic alliances, through regional trade and formalizing them in agreements (RTAs).  China started the process in 2003 when it signed the CEPA (Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) with Hong Kong and carried on in negotiating more with Iceland, Pakistan, India, Macau, New Zealand, ASEAN, Australia and Chile.  The main feature of these agreements indicates how China has started to drift away from being just an FTA-standard setting contributor with its vast weight, and rather becoming a pioneer for trade integration.

One would suppose that the recent China-Switzerland FTA could become a model for how much importance China poses to questions of IP protection, enhancement and opportunity in trade agreements. The reality seems to be that China remains a very selective and picky player and adopts a criteria based on the strengths of the contracting party. Agreements with countries such as Pakistan, Singapore, Macau, Iceland do not actually spell out well defined IP provisions or programs or include none at all. In RTAs with three countries of the Americas, such as Chile, Costa Rica and Peru, the documentation unveils only a mild approach on IP interaction with China, relegating IP matters to just a few articles and preferring more broad assumptions such as social and economic welfare enhancement and so on. With Chile in particular, the parties have set out articles regarding Geographical Indications (Art. 10); encouraged research in science and technology (Art. 106.1) and, just shortly after provisions on Cultural Cooperation, an article denoting a generic tone of cooperation between the countries (Art. 111) which makes it ever more evident that for these countries it is not yet time to expect a far reaching an agreement as the one between China and Switzerland which regulates IP, to a large extent covering copyrights, trademarks, patents, and plant varieties. 
Probably the most relevant provision and its Annex, for IP related issues in the agreement with Chile is to be found under Geographical Indications.  The products at stake are less numerous than what was hoped for, where the GIs covered are only a wine from Shaoxing the Anxi Tieguan Yin tea, and pisco from Chile.

China imports about 23% of all Chilean yearly trade and is the second largest exporter to Chile, after the U.S., counting for 18% of overall Chilean imports by country.  Given the strong impetus of Chilean economy and foreign direct investment into China, it is likely that not too long down the road from now Chile may play even a more crucial role for China in South America, hence gaining more credit for farther reaching agreements in the area of IP with China.

Post written by Ricardo Benussi (Business Advisory Associate --Italian Desk -- Dezan Shira & Associates)

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Chile first from Latin America to sign up for Aufiovisual Treaty

Chile has become the first Latin American nation to commit itself to the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, as IP Tango learns from today's WIPO media release:
Beijing Notification No. 7
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances
 
Ratification by the Republic of Chile 
The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) presents his compliments to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and has the honor to notify the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Chile, on June 22, 2015, of its instrument of ratification of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, adopted at Beijing on June 24, 2012. 
The date of entry into force of the said Treaty will be notified when the required number of ratifications or accessions is reached in accordance with Article 26 of the said Treaty.
The full list of countries signed up for Beijing can be accessed here. The tally now stands at 8. By Article 26 the Treaty comes into force three months after 30 "eligible parties" have signed up for it.

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

Innovación, cuenta pendiente de Latinoamérica


A pesar de que las economías latinoamericanas han gozado de buena salud durante la última década, con crecimientos económicos superiores a la media mundial,  Latinoamérica tiene un una importante cuenta pendiente. La falta absoluta de innovación

Si bien medir la innovación no es una tarea del todo sencilla, existe un indicador que es muy revelador para conocer el nivel de innovación en un país. El número de patentes registradas por cada país.

Resulta lógico creer que cuando un inventor hace un descubrimiento que tiene un importante potencial comercial, por lo general lo registra, además de en su país, en la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de Estados Unidos (USPTO), o a nivel internacional ante la Organización Mundial de Propiedad Intelectual de las Naciones Unidas (OMPI).

Las últimas estadísticas de ambos registros de patentes muestran que los países de América Latina, aunque están aumentando su número de patentes internacionales, no lo están haciendo al ritmo que debieran para cerrar la brecha que los separa de otras partes del mundo.

Según nuevos datos de la USPTO, que clasifica las patentes por el país de origen de los inventores, Estados Unidos registró 159,000 patentes el año pasado, Japón 56,000, Corea del Sur 18,000, Alemania 17,000, China (incluyendo Hong Kong) alrededor de 8,700, Gran Bretaña y Francia 7,100 cada uno, Israel 3,600, India 3,000, Singapur 1,000 y España 900.

Los 32 países de América Latina y el Caribe en conjunto registraron alrededor de 836 patentes. 

Dato que resulta muy llamativo dado que América Latina y el Caribe, con una población de casi 600 millones y dos países — Brasil y México — que respectivamente son la séptima y decimoquinta economías del mundo, registraron menos del 5 por ciento de las patentes registradas por Corea del Sur, y apenas el 23 por ciento de las registradas por Israel. Las estadísticas de la OMPI reflejan una disparidad similar.

La mayor parte de las patentes de América Latina fueron registradas por Brasil (362) y México (222). Le siguen Argentina (81), Chile (64), Colombia (25), Costa Rica (32), Cuba (19), Venezuela (14), Trinidad y Tobago (8), Perú (5), Ecuador (3) y Bolivia (1).

Algunos países latinoamericanos como Brasil, México y Chile, han más que duplicado sus patentes internacionales en los últimos cinco años, pero su crecimiento queda muy lejos del de otros países con economías emergentes como la India, que ha logrado triplicar sus patentes internacionales durante el mismo período.

Ojalá que en los próximos años algo cambie en la región y los indicadores revelen un crecimiento en el número de patentes internacionales. La economía crece si la Innovación crece.

Fuente: Artículo de Andrés Oppenheimer (@oppenheimera) publicado aquí y aquí.

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

The New European Patent by Alfredo Ilardi

"On 17 December 2012, following a complex negotiation which lasted 12 years, the
European Parliament adopted Regulations (EU) 1257/2012 and 1260/2012 and the text of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC Agreement). These instruments institute the ‘European patent with unitary effect’, the first unified system for the protection of inventions within the European Union. The two Regulations will be applicable after the entry into force of the UPC Agreement, which was signed on 19 February 2013 by 24 Member States of the European Union. This book traces the evolution of the idea behind the institution of the European patent with unitary effect, including a comparative analysis of the existing parallel regional and international procedures for the protection of inventions. It presents a synthesis of the different phases of the negotiations which led to the adoption of the first unitary patent system within the European Union. In addition it examines the provisions of the two Regulations, of the UPC Agreement and of the jurisdictional system under Brussels I Regulation. Finally, it reproduces in the Appendix the texts of Regulations (EU) 1257 and 1260/2012 and of the UPC Agreement."
Image result for hart publishingThe Author
Alfredo Ilardi is former Head of the Collection of Laws and Treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
 Published May 2015
164pp Hbk 9781849468336
RSP: £65 / US$130 / CDN$130
Discount Price: £52 / US$104 / CDN$104
Order Online
UK, EU, ROW: If you would like to place an order you can do so through the Hart Publishing website (link below). To receive the discount please quote the reference ‘EPLAWBLOG’ in the voucher code field and click ‘apply’.
http://www.hartpub.co.uk/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781849468336
US: If you would like to place an order you can do so through the Hart Publishing website (link below). To receive the discount please quote the reference ‘EPLAWBLOG’ in the special instructions field on the credit card screen.
http://www.hartpublishingusa.com/books/details.asp?ISBN=9781849468336
Hart Publishing Ltd, 16C Worcester Place, Oxford, OX1 2JW
Telephone Number: 01865 517 530
Fax Number: 01865 510 710
Website: http://www.hartpub.co.uk

Why is this book relevant to the iptango followers?
While the blog is happy to publish any IP material of good quality, one needs to be careful. At the end of the date the blog is for the Latin American market and if one is to endorse a book, it needs to do so with property as to establish a link why the book should be in the Latin American reading list - especially since the book is about the new European Patent system.

Here is my summary: matter that covers the book can be reflected in some discussion heard on the South and Central American continents. The blog has sometimes referred to main trade blocs that do exist in Latin America such as the Andean Community (CAN) and Mercosur. CAN for instance has ‘Decision No. 486 Establishing the Common Industrial Property Regime’ and has a Community trade mark system – similar to the Community trade mark (CTM). The patent system is also regulated and harmonised through Decision 486. In this line when reading the book it was easy to reflect on how the new European Patent can be followed (or not) by the Latin American region.

The book contents and material helpful to have it in your intellect [can I add this to my skills in linkedln?] are: ‘global protection of IPRs. The project for the revision of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property and the TRIPS agreement.’ The section gives an overview how certain legislations marked the beginning of the changes to come. Going deeper into the heart of the book and putting aside the negotiation of the unitary patent system one can indulge in the analysis of the legal instrument. In this chapter one can make some comparisons with Decision 486 which for example address priority claims - granting same priority rights as those granted by the Paris Convention. Moreover, a chapter is dedicated to the European Unified Patent Court similar to the one established by CAN [CAN created a uniform court procedure that allows simultaneous actions to be brought for infringements to patents as well as other IPRs]. Indeed one can compare and contrast the expression of ideas found in the book with some cases in Latin America. In my case, I am more aware of CAN but perhaps some of you can also place some similarities with other trade blocs IP system. At the end what is sought with the Unitary Patent is the same aim i.e. ‘regional cooperation on patent harmonization’ and at this stage, going further that just an adoption of a common patent law, by having an agreement on the interpretation and practical application of the law.


Thanks Emma Swinden (Marketing Manager @ Hart Publishing) for the book and for the support and trust given to this blog.