Welcome to our blog for Intellectual Property Law and Practice in Latin America!
¡Bienvenidos a nuestro blog de Derecho y Práctica de la Propiedad Intelectual en Latinoamérica!
Bem-vindo ao nosso blog sobre Direito e Prática de Propriedade Intelectual na América Latina!
Showing posts with label trade marks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade marks. Show all posts

Friday, 17 March 2023

Patricia Covarrubia

Trademark Infringement and Online Environment - let's make sure our research is up-to-date and writing with a purpose

    No comments:
This is my personal intake on the symposium I attended last week.

On Thursday the 9th (March 2023) I attended as a guest, the

Trademark Infringement and Online Environment Symposium/ Workshop.
The invitation came directly from Prof Xuemei Bian who together with David Humphries from UK IPO, are working on understanding the counterfeit market online and to propose a strategy. The project is funded by the British Academy and while this is based on UK, I thought the same is applicable to all jurisdictions as the online world is without frontiers. 

The guests and speakers came from different backgrounds, and different industries e.g., IPO, enforcement bodies (police), Law, Criminology, data analytics, marketing, Procter and Gamble, and Alibaba. The symposium took, and the project as such takes, into consideration consultations, advise and research focusing on collaboration for actionable solutions (aka interdisciplinary / cross sectors).

Xuemei & David opened the floor to provide us with a general view on the rationale of the work they are doing and what they are aiming at. For instance, this was the second symposium / workshops that they have organised, they have done plenty of literature review based on data /statistics looking at a better understanding, that is, to identify what has been done, what is missing, and to question if the available research done up to today, is relevant. This was a moment of reflection for me: could it be that we academics are focusing too much on the research part rather that its purpose? David noted that it is crucial to understand the economic and societal influence of social media and counterfeiting. He emphasised that research can make a difference, but it seems that academia works in silos – again, this was a reflection moment for me. He continued to note that the IPO and his role is to take a ‘helicopter approach’ (looking at the overall context); noting that it is evident that protection isn’t great and there is a need to work with the evidence and establish a counterfeit strategy (Look at the Intellectual Property Counter-Infringement Strategy 2022 to 2027 here). 

Evaluation of the IPO counter-infringement strategy 
Marianna Lemus-Boskovitch, and Teodora Lazar, from BOP Consulting presented their research from the consumer perspective; advertising communication and how consumers react and its impact – based on counterfeits. They have done interviews to gather what sources are available and did a data gap analysis showing indicators to build upon. This was done to test what material / information is out there, stating that they did a theory approach. David closed this part of the session by indicating that ‘monitoring and evaluation’ is a good start! 

Online / Social media IP infringement 
David Shepherd, Senior Lecturer in Economic Crime, University of Portsmouth presented ‘The impact of complicit social media influencers on consumption of counterfeit goods in the UK’. After showering us with charts, and statistics, I could be bias to report what I got from his presentation: women are more cautious when buying online than men! David run a survey during 2021 in both sexes and covering 16-60 yrs. old. The survey showed that 31% of men purchased endorsed counterfeits while women 13%. In any case, the majority knew they were buying a counterfeit. What is of worry, which I do agree, is that there are certain product categories, that are dangerous e.g., batteries and beauty product (due to the chemical components). He also acknowledged that there is a percentage of buyers that are ‘hunters of counterfeits’ [was I under a rock that I did not know much about it?]. The survey also revealed that we are susceptibility to trust others e.g., family, friends, and influencers, and their influence varies as it seems to be age related. Another part of the survey showed that the rationale of consumers to purchase counterfeits there was a correlation when ‘price is high, and the quality is not important’. 

Ronald Brohm, managing director at REACT, intervened to talk about his experience noting that the ‘online world’ and the ‘trading’ includes apps, social media, stating that legislation is behind. Notices of ‘take down’ to links, and hiding links, seems straightforward but it gets complicated with apps and social media. A burden encountered with, is the definition of what ‘trade’ is. He explained that in China, one need to have a license to trade, and enforcement is less complex as it is easy to identify traders; and while the system is not perfect, this practice shows a good practice. Tackling global online / social media counterfeiting -technology and implications.
Dennis Collopy, Senior Research Fellow, University of Hertfordshire, spoke about artificial intelligence and IPRs enforcement (IPO commissioned this research in 2021) how to use AI in the matter of copyright, trade marks and trade secrets infringements. He has done a literature review on the matter and conducted a survey by interviewing different individuals, e.g., from the judiciary, NGOs, etc. Looking at data mining it seems that there is a big challenge regarding training data and to use just ‘clean’ data rather than bias, and noticed the lack of transparency (due to the black box) and in general about the quantity and quality of data fed. Data must be updated constantly, needs retraining, to follow GDP compliance, finally, concluding the session, his point noted the need of a ‘revolution on Data Quality’ and that, in his opinion, the AI challenges that are identified exceeded the number of opportunities [I personally believe that we get to excited about AI without reflecting the risks] . 

Sharon [left] Andrew [right]
From the point of view of Andrew Masterson, a member of the PIPCU team, City of London Police he presented his experience, but also noted that how can the law enforcement rely on the AI due to the matters raised by Dennis. Another matter that was noted by Sharon Penketh, Manager Global Brand Protection eBusiness, at Procter & Gamble, is whether companies have the resources to apply AI.

Improving IP protection and enforcement in the digital economy
Muhammad Asif Khan and Yu Ye, Assistant Professor in & Lecturer in Digital Marketing, from Northumbria University presented ‘The findings of a comprehensive systematic literature review on Trademark Infringement in the online as opposed to offline economy’. They did a systematic literature review on trade mark infringement – what information is available on this by business and management, computer science and law, extending to industry report/data. Some of the keywords used were infringement, duplicate, imitation, competing, replica, copycat, counterfeit, fake. They noted the next step will be text mining: such as a key themes and gaps in the literature; to analyse the structure of the data; and to raise potential approaches. During the talk, I was made aware of Leximancer, did you know about this? a platform that analyses text documents and in the case of IP it does an advanced trade mark similarity assessment models [did I get this info right?].

Claudio Bergonzi, Director Global IP enforcement, at Alibaba Group, concentrated in four points: 
1) establishing good programmes – what IPRs are there;
2) proactive use of AI; 
3) offline corporation – law enforcement (what is behind, distribution networks); and 
4)cooperation with rightsholders. 
For instance, he mentioned the quantity of consumers they have, in how many countries they put their products on, and how many they deal with by day. For them, it is essential to know what IPRs there are and to whom they belong to and emphasised the importance of cooperation from traders. Noted that Alibaba uses AI, and they continuously feed data. They also work heavily on identifying legitimate products – and work also on counterfeit prevention ( by recording images). Talking about fakes, he gave an example which again, I think I am living under a rock!, anyways, he mentioned influencers telling followers like ‘buy this green t-shirt from Alibaba and use this code and you will get a fake [luxury fashion brand bag]’ what?!!! He continued to cover the matter of fake reviews –which is feeding to AI.

The two posters on display
The day closed with ‘Seed corns for collaborative projects – the findings of PhD research project’. Sadia Haque, PhD Researcher, Northumbria University presented ‘Brand protection marketing campaign messages, do they work and why?’ Jaishree Prasad, PhD Researcher, Northumbria University presented ‘Why should we even care about brand infringement when our brand is not counterfeited?’ I had the opportunity to speak to them before their presentation as they displayed their posters during the coffee breaks and lunch time. Both junior researchers were enthusiastic about their topics, as well as to be close to finishing this chapter of their life, a PhD. Their topics were topical to the workshop as they presented both quantitative and qualitative research on the matter of counterfeit. Jaishree made reflect upon one of her many findings, which is that the ‘impact of non-luxury brands in the sale of counterfeit bags is greater than to the luxury brands.’ And it does make sense, because rather than expending $50 in a bag from a high street shop, a consume can get from same price, a fake luxury fashion brand bag. It does harm the non-luxury shop as the consumer is their regular, that consumer will NOT buy the original luxury one. Sadia’s examined the messages delivered by campaigns to stop counterfeiting; one of her early conclusions, based on evidence, is that the ‘force’ of the message to make an impact should vary depending on the receiver. This means that we consumers, receive messages differently in accordance to our background.

A very fruitful date. Thanks for the invite and looking forward to working with you in any future project. 
Read More

Friday, 24 June 2022

Patricia Covarrubia

Brazil: fakes in the agricultural sector

    No comments:

Pesticides and agricultural products suffer the same fate as any other products in the market, that is piracy. While IP plays a role as to protect patents, trade marks and other IP rights, the matter of piracy in this particular sector goes beyond protecting the economy and the private rights of the owners (incl. harming the country’s economy). Pirate products in this market endangers the lives of human beings and animals and may pollute the environment. Because of this, the Brazilian Association of Industries of Fine Chemistry, Biotechnology and its Specialties (ABIFINA), is positively acting to deter this crime by 

  1. Raising awareness for society to stop such practice which is a ‘crime’ and a matter of public health; back in September 2021, ABIFINA launched the “Brochure to Combat Piracy of Agricultural Inputs – Agricultural Defenses and Veterinary Products”. 
  2. Launching “Monitoramento de Ilegais AgroVet” [“Monitoring of Illegal AgroVet”] initiative. This brings together actions by police, customs, and agricultural inspection authorities in the fight against fakes. To this effect, news is collected and sent in a weekly report to interested parties. 

Source ABIFINA.

Read More

Saturday, 5 February 2022

IPTango

BIICL course: Pharmaceuticals and Intellectual Property


The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) will hold the online course Pharmaceuticals and Intellectual Property from 4 March to 13 May 2022.

The course consists of 10 sessions via Zoom. It is addressed to legal practitioners, students, and law academics interested in the link between public health and intellectual property.

The topics include inter alia pharmaceutical industry and national systems of innovation; intellectual property and product regulation; international intellectual property and trade law; access to medicines: from HIV/AIDS to COVID-19; and alternative pharmaceutical innovation models.

The trainers are Professors Graham Dutfield (University of Leeds) and Uma Suthersanen (Queen Mary University of London).

The course cost is £700. Discounts and scholarships are available. Applications for scholarships must be submitted before 11 February 2022.

More information here.

Credit: The image is courtesy of BIICL.

Read More

Monday, 10 January 2022

Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo

[Guest Post] Mercado Libre’s second Transparency Report


IPTango is pleased to publish a guest post by Francisco Burguete, discussing the second Transparency Report published by Mercado Libre.

Mercado Libre (MELI) published its second Transparency Report, which covers data from January to June 2021 and includes a new section on user information requests (see here IPTango post on MELI’s first Transparency Report).

MELI emphasized that in the second report, “the scope of information available to users, authorities and civil society organizations has been expanded[, and for] the first time, information requests from authorities that are processed in compliance with the law are shared”.

Now, the Transparency Report comprises four main sections: user information requests (section one), product security and quality (section two), protection of IP rights (section three), and privacy matters (section four).


Product security and quality (Section 02)

This section contains information about removed content because of violations of MELI’s Terms and Conditions (T&C), such as offering prohibited items on the platform (e.g., items violating IP rights):

  • 267,461,670 listings were placed on MELI’s websites as of 30 June 2021 (compared to 331,607,978 listings in the first report).
  • 8,815,828 listings were detected and moderated by MELI due to violation of its Listing and Prohibited Items Policies (compared to 18,570,436 in the previous reporting period).
  • 53,173 listings were reported by users (compared to 112,424 in the previous report).
  • Top jurisdictions concerning detected listings regarding the violation of MELI’s Listing and Prohibited Items Policies:

Jurisdictions

Detected Listings (1st report, as of 31 December 2020)

Detected Listings (2nd report, as of 30 June 2021)

Brazil

13,283,854

4,013,453

Mexico

2,282,461

2,311,539

Colombia

1,371,060

1,240,494

Argentina

792,168

253,219

Chile

609,413

581,119

Uruguay

98,915

150,475

Peru

96,569

174,077

Rest of Latin America

35,996

91,452

  • Only 4.5% of detected listings were reactivated (compared to 3.12% of reactivated ads).
It should be noted that the second report contains the top main content infringing categories broken down per country. Meanwhile, the categories were classified only per product in the first report.


Protection of IP rights (Section 03)

In this section, MELI presents its Brand Protection Program (BPP), which “enable IPR holders to report infringing listings [via a Notice & Take Down -N&TD- procedure]”. MELI emphasized that they have developed “self-mapping tools, based on artificial intelligence, to “learn” from the notices received and proactively remove listings” that infringe IPRs.

  • 969,413 N&TDs were submitted (compared to 2,107,264 in the previous reporting period).
  • 56,432 counter-notices were submitted (compared to 104,661 in the first report).
  • The number of Proactive Detections and Confirmed Complaints:

Date

Proactive Detections

Confirmed Complaints

2021-1

1,322,070

159,409

2021-2

907,771

170,128

2021-3

1,558,342

206,285

2021-4

733,493

132,261

2021-5

760,860

117,082

2021-6

668,668

125,850


The English version of the second Transparency Report can be reviewed here. The Spanish version is available here.

In the past, IPTango interviewed Juan Cichero (Head of Brand Protection at MELI), who conversed about BPP, the N&TD procedure, and more. Read here the interview.

Credit: Image by athree23 from Pixabay.
Read More

Thursday, 24 June 2021

Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo

Mercado Libre published its first Transparency Report


On 19 May 2021, Mercado Libre (MELI) published its first Transparency ReportMELI stated that the report’s purpose is “to make our policies and actions transparent to safeguard the security and privacy of over 74 million users in our entire regional ecosystem”.

The Transparency Report consists of three main sections: product security and quality, protection of IP rights, and privacy matters. Read below some highlights of the report!


Section: Product security and quality

This section contains stats about removed content due to violations of MELI’s Terms and Conditions (T&C), which inter alia, prohibit certain items are sold on the platform (e.g., medicines, counterfeit items and other goods violating IP rights):

  • 331,607,978 listings were placed on the 18 MELI's websites as of 31 December 2020.
  • 18,570,436 listings were detected and moderated by MELI due to violation of its Listing and Prohibited Items Policies.
  • 112,424 listings were reported by users.
  • 65,180 listings were removed due to COVID-19 related matters.
  • Top 10 product categories regarding removed listings due to violation of MELI’s Listing and Prohibited Items Policies:

Product Category

Removed Listings

Courses

7,036,318

Medicine, health and/or beauty substances and products

1,386,243

E-books

1,337,862

Digital accounts & contents

1,278,420

Adult products

844,061

Personal databases

611,122

Decoders, antennas & signals

433,865

Personal documents

230,757

Tobacco & alike

215,817

Products & financial services

126,428


  • Top jurisdictions concerning detected listings due to violation of MELI’s Listing and Prohibited Items Policies:

Jurisdictions

Detected Listings

Brazil

13,283,854

Mexico

2,282,461

Colombia

1,371,060

Argentina

792,168

Chile

609,413

Uruguay

98,915

Peru

96,569

Rest of Latin America

35,996


  • In the report is highlighted that MELI uses machine learning technologies to detect infringing listings. In this sense, only 3.12% of the detected listings went back to the platform (reactivated ads).

Section: Protection of IP rights

This section contains stats regarding MELI’s Brand Protection Program (BPP), which “enable IPR holders to report infringing listings [via a Notice & Take Down -N&TD- procedure] in any of the 18 countries where Mercado Libre operates”.

  • 2,107,264 N&TDs were submitted.
  • 104,661 counter-notices were submitted.
  • The number of confirmed and not confirmed N&TDs:

Date

Confirmed N&TD

Not confirmed N&TD

2020-7

580,164

57,589

2020-8

396,225

46,558

2020-9

285,462

48,326

2020-10

333,046

26,757

2020-11

198,232

24,184

2020-12

92,568

23,035



Review the full Transparency Report here in English and here in Spanish.

Read here the interview IPTango held with Juan Cichero (Head of Brand Protection at MELI). Juan conversed about BPP, including the machine learning technologies used to detect infringing listings and the N&TD procedure.

Credit: Image is courtesy of Mercado Libre.

Read More