Showing posts sorted by relevance for query panama. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Oops Panama did it again!

Patricia Covarrubia February 21, 2017 No comments:

We have some news from Panama, again! It was recently that we became aware of a patent regional initiative that was taking place in Latin America as part of CAF (Development Bank of Latin America). A little reminder: because of the low performance of the region in the development of own innovative technologies, CAF aimed to establish a regional program– to reverse this trend. What CAF did was to identify and prioritize certain factors/indicators such as: International patent applications (PCT); Patents granted in important markets; Royalties arising from the licensing of IP; and High technology exports. Once the data was collected the next step was to do a comparative analysis with other regions: Asia, North America and Europe.

A few days ago Álvaro Atilano, the coordinator of the Technological Patents Regional Initiative for Development, informed us that "Panama added 84 technological concepts, with which the country is getting ready to start the patent application process required by international agencies to achieve their registry."

February, all hands in: the CAF Method for the Accelerated Development of Patents.
This regional initiative led by CAF and carried out by the National Secretariat for Science, Technology, and Innovation saw in weeks time "the participation of 90 people from 16 companies of the private sector and state institutions. They were provided with 66 hours of instruction, which were helpful to create, design, structure, and present their innovative ideas with the objective of registering them through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)." Indeed, as Atilano put it, it was a 'useful week'.

Atilano added that the institutions became more aware that Panama can generate highly innovative ideas. He noted that participants came up "with a series of technological concepts that have good possibilities of being patented. These results, added to those of last year, when we obtained 136 technological concepts, help position Panama with respect to the registration of technological patent".

The CAF Method for the Accelerated Development of Patents seeks to 1)break the currently existing paradigms in the region regarding innovation; and 2)how to conceptualize patentable technologies, including drafting quality patents. CAF has previously used this method (accelerated development of patents) in Medellin, and Monterrey.

Thanks Atilano for passing this news - you did it again! well done.

For more information see here.

Panama got some news for us: pushing to the top!

Patricia Covarrubia November 21, 2016 No comments:

This month I received some fresh news from Panama. This is quite unusual for this blog – just by doing a little search in our database this fact is revealed. Is something happening in Panama? YES!

Mr Álvaro Atilano, CAF Ejecutivo Principal/Coordinador put me in the right direction. He noted the Patent Regional Initiative that is taking place in Latin America which is part of CAF (Development Bank of Latin America). The initiative appears to start having an impact on the patent industry in the region. It is believed that in a couple of years’ time, the project and the region will be much discussed in IP circles worldwide, and surely will be an example to follow in non-industrialized countries.

CAF provides with services in the form of loans, co-financing, credit lines, financial assistance services, and technical assistance to name a few. Due to the low performance of the region in the development of own innovative technologies, CAF decided (back in 2011) to establish a regional program– the aim? to reverse this trend. In order to proceed, CAF identified and prioritized certain factors/indicators which would be suitable for establishing and measuring the impact of this program. The factors identified were: International patent applications (PCT); Patents granted in important markets; Royalties arising from the licensing of IP; and High technology exports. A comparative analysis was done with other regions such as Asia, North America and Europe.

The objectives of this project are: “Contribute to increase in the short term the volume of patents generated in the region via international patents (USPTO, EPO and PCT); Support governments and others in defining strategies for patentable technological innovation; Establish technology patent accelerators in the region; Raise royalties and high technology exports from the region in the medium to long term.”

CAF looks at key issues such as: “Developing patentable technology solutions to global problems and challenges identified from now on; Patents granted to have a minimum coverage of 1 billion people; Drafts of patent applications should be written by the inventor/researcher which will low costs; Prior to initiating any patenting process, market studies and technological prospecting should be carried out”.

One of the countries selected for this initiative has been Panama and Mr Atilano has sent to the iptango blog a presentation on the impact that it is having in the country. CAF selected the Technological University of Panama (UTP) as a pilot. The plan is to make the UTP “the first Ibero-American University to be among the top 50 universities in the world in applications via PCT”. In fact according to the data UTP had introduced between September and October 2016 fifty-two applications via the PCT.

Because of this result, CAF is considering to extent same strategy to several Panamanian universities and companies. It is going to do so during a period of 12 months.

Thanks Albaro for making us aware of this project that looks promising not only for Panama but hopefully for more Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Panama boosts its international IP commitments

Jeremy June 20, 2012 No comments:

7 September 2012 is an important day for intellectual property rights in Panama. On that date, the Republic's commitment to three international instruments take effect. The details can be found in the following World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Notifications:

Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure - Accession by the Republic of Panama: Budapest Notification No. 286
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) - Accession by the Republic of Panama: PCT Notification No. 201
Trademark Law Treaty - Accession by the Republic of Panama: TLT Notification No. 58

UPOV plant protection convention to take root in Panama

Jeremy October 25, 2012 No comments:

While the choice of contrasting text size and colours for the title, subtitle and contents of WIPO media releases is welcome, the text is often uniformly dull and formal, sometimes to the extent that you can't easily see what it's all about. IP Tango readers should use their charm and talent to persuade WIPO to come up with something prettier, and more user-friendly. Meanwhile, today's media release, pictured below so you can see what it looks and reads like, is good news for plant protection people:

UPOV Notification No. 114
International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants

Accession by the Republic of Panama to the 1991 Act

The Secretary-General of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) presents his compliments and has the honor to notify the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Panama, on October 22, 2012, of its instrument of accession to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as revised at Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991.

The said International Convention as revised in 1991 will enter into force, with respect to the Republic of Panama, on November 22, 2012.

October 22, 2012

Panama: damages for trade mark opposition made in bad faith

Jeremy September 11, 2014 1 comment:

In June 2014 the Civil Chamber of Panama's Supreme Court of Justice, in a majority decision, ordered Bridgestone Corporation and Bridgestone Licensing Services Inc to pay Muresa and Tire Group of Factories Ltd Inc damages of $5 million plus $431,000 in costs and court expenses following a finding that the filing by Bridgestone of a trade mark opposition was made in bad faith, leading to the cessation of the commercialisation of products covered by the RIVERSTONE trade mark.

The decision was supported by the filing of evidence to the effect that Muresa had suffered commercial damage as it had to use other marks, including marks of inferior quality, in order to supply market demand.

This blogger is not familiar with any other instances of damages being filed for wrongful opposition and wonders if readers can enlighten him: is this something that extends beyond Panama?

Source: "Bridgestone ordered to pay $5 million in damages in RIVERSTONE case", by Marissa Lasso De La Vega (Alfaro Ferrer & Ramirez, Panama), published in the World Trademark Review.

Branding in Panama: a WIPO perspective

Jeremy April 23, 2012 No comments:

The April 2012 issue of the WIPO Magazine, which is now online, contains an article titled "Panama: Three Marks for Development". It's not, as one might have thought, an exercising in giving Panama marks (out of five? Or Ten?) for its efforts in using intellectual property as a springboard for industrial and commercial development. Rather, it's the first in a new series of articles which promise to explore how the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is helping associations of small local farmers and producers in developing countries to add value to their outputs through product branding (i.e. through "marks").

This article, by freelance journalise Leire Otaegi, reports on the experiences of the producers of three of Panama’s most culturally significant products: Café de Palmira; the Guna people’s finely-stitched cloth “molas” and La Chorrera pineapples. You can check it out here.

The Guna people to Nike: Just don't Do It

Patricia Covarrubia May 27, 2019 No comments:

@Isaac Larrier

A limited edition by sportswear Nike is a trending topic. The shoes were to be a tribute to Puerto Rico but the Guna people, the second largest indigenous community in Panama, objected to the design. The said design was a ‘mola’, which is a protected traditional design by the community. The design in question are the traditional 'mola' patterns which feature colourful, swirling designs and geometric or figurative drawings. This art is ‘passed on stitch by stitch from mothers to daughters and bears witness to the Guna vision of the cosmos and their harmonious relationship with nature’.

Costa Rica: taking advantage of Trade Agreements

Patricia Covarrubia June 11, 2010 No comments:

On 9 June the Ministry of Foreign Commerce (Comex) in Costa Rica announced a new structure that aims to take better advantage of trade agreements.

Costa Rica has existing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Mexico, Canada, USA, Dominican Republic, the Community of Caribbean States (CARICOM), Chile and Panama. It has also signed FTAs with China and Singapore and has too completed and is expected to negotiate the formal signing of an Association Agreement with the European Union (EU).

Comex’s leader, Anabel Gonzalez, explained that the agreements are only the platform and now they need and must be manage well and get the most profit possible. She explains that once the agreement with the EU, China and Singapore come to effect, 92% of national exports and 77% of imports will remain in the free trade regime.

The new structure, whose leader is Federico Valerio who was the coordinator of negotiations in the area of Intellectual Property (IP), is based on a general direction. From that direction, the Comex has several units: 1.-In the area of geographical regions were created units for North America, Central America, Panama and the Dominican Republic, South America and the Caribbean, Europe, Asia, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other multilateral forums. 2.- Units by subject area: monitoring and access for industrial goods, agriculture, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade and tariff quotas.

In addition, rules of origin, customs and trade facilitation, services and investment dispute settlement and institutional issues, intellectual property and innovation, and government procurement, labour and environmental issues relating to trade, competition and trade protection.

Minister Gonzalez mentioned that there will be coordination between these units. For instance the unit responsible for North America will have consultations on intellectual property, technical barriers, or any subject of another unit.

This is a good move. Certainly, just signing an agreement is not all. After this, and so how to get the best of it is the key question. Surely, by forming teams that know better a specific subject/geographic area is indeed a good start. What I notice is that the leader of the whole structure is quite familiar with the negotiations in IP. Let’s wish that he look after it.

The newspaper note can be read here.

Hilton Latin America brand strategy: sound English

Jeremy November 04, 2008 No comments:

A short while back, IP Tango reported on the expansion of the Hilton Garden Inn franchise into Costa Rica. It now seems that this was not an isolated brand expansion but part of a wider strategy. In "Hilton Gets Aggressive in the Caribbean and South America" by William Ng, the author writes:

"Hilton Hotels plans to quadruple its presence in the Caribbean and Latin America by adding 150 properties over the next five years. The company currently has 51 properties in the region, with 42 more in the development pipeline, but it is looking to ramp up.
... Hilton is banking on success in the region through brand mixture.
The comprehensive plan targets four areas: Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and South America. In the Caribbean, Hilton said growth will be through slotting "focused-service" brands Hilton Garden Inn and Hampton Inn at commercial centers like San Juan, Trinidad, and Nassau, as well as through implementing luxury properties at high-end mixed-use developments in the Turks and Caicos, Lesser Antilles, and Bahamas. .... 17 properties will be introduced in the region through 2013.
In Mexico, Hilton's existing portfolio count is 19, and it will add 60 more throughout the country, covering large, capital, industrial, and border cities in 31 states. Hampton and Homewood Suites will be in play particularly; 20 now in the pipeline include Homewood hotels in Monterrey, and Hamptons in Guadalajara, Los Cabos, Cancun, and Tulum.
Hilton's strategy in the nascent Central American market, where it has seven hotels, will be to add 23 mostly Hampton and Hilton Garden Inn lodgings. The hotelier wants to forge alliances with local developers on multi-property deals in the region's big locations, namely Liberia, Panama, Leon, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica—where it recently debuted three hotels and resorts. But there also are upper-end market developments: a Conrad in Honduras, a Doubletree in Panama, and an Embassy Suites in Costa Rica.
Brazil, due to its "size and strength," is the linchpin in Hilton's South America eye. The company's regional headquarters is in Sao Paulo, and it will focus on that city, plus Rio de Janeiro and secondary cities such as Brasilia. Hotels in gateways Buenos Aires, Santiago (Chile), Lima (Peru), Bogota (Colombia), and Caracas (Venezuela) are planned. There will be 50 introductions on the continent.Initially, development will be concentrated on Hilton Garden Inns and Doubletrees, in mid-market and conversion opportunities. ...".

Branding and marketing experts may wish to make their own assessments of the Hilton strategy and forecast its likely outcome. One thing is notable, however: Hilton's brands are all English-language and would appear to be addressed to the Anglophone traveller or tourist. In how many sectors other than the hotel sector can successful branding be made to depend on ignoring the local element of the market?

Mexico: cultural (mis) appropriation

Patricia Covarrubia July 29, 2022 No comments:

Last week, the Mexican Secretary of Culture sent a letter to the company SHEIN asking to clarify the launch of the piece “Flower trim top with floral print” that is identical to a garment designed by the handicraft brand ‘ YucaChulas’.

The statement reads ‘” cultural elements whose origin is fully documented’, which generate economic rewards in the communities that sell them. The blouse, short huipil, was created in the Mayan communities of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo, and its design would not be possible without knowledge “transmitted from generation to generation, product of the collective creativity of the Mayan people.”’ YucaChulas also went to social media (here) to express their dismay against SHEIN due to the lack of recognition of the work made by local artisans and how plagiarism diminish and devalued their culture. Since then, SHEIN has removed the garment and noted in a statement that it was not their intention ‘to infringe anyone’s valid intellectual property and it is not our business model to do so.’

Photo: El Universal - YucaChulas left; SHEIN to the right

As you know, the protection of cultural expression through intellectual property is a heated debate. And now, WIPO has advanced in this topic – see early publication here. In the meantime, some countries, especially in Latin America, have some kind of legislation that regulates the use of traditional knowledge, but yet there is not clear procedure or enforcement, it seems like just ‘good practice’. However, one must say that the Panama Law No. 20 on the Special Intellectual Property Regime with Respect to the Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Protection and Defence of their Cultural Identity and Traditional Knowledge, seems a solid one. Others, like Colombia, continues to use Geographical Indications protecting cultural expressions and traditional knowledge, although this protects the product linked to the origin, rather than the product per se. The same strategy is used in Peru, where you will notice several ‘collective marks’. Yet, IP is territorial and these legal tools, used in Panama, Colombia and Peru as examples, only will stop the ‘plagiarised’ product to be sold in their countries, but can continue to sell it in other jurisdictions. [sad]

Read the news at El Universal MX

United States to refresh two Latin America FTAs

Patricia Covarrubia February 10, 2011 No comments:

President Obama has instructed Ron Kirk (United States Trade Representative) to step up with Colombia and Panama as to resolve any outstanding issue. The goal is to approve both FTA: the US with Colombia and the US with Panama.

To this effect next week Mr Kirk is sending to Colombia a delegation to begin the process. However, he warns that "any schedule will depend on resolving" issues like labour right protection and human rights.

I presume that if the FTA between the US and Colombia is finally ratified by the US Congress, many can raise again hopes that the adoption of the Madrid Protocol is a certain fact.

Few months back this blog raised the issue that in this FTA there was a footnote where Colombia committed itself to accede to the Madrid Protocol. Also we need to remember that the FTA between the EU and Colombia do cover this issue as well.

That said, does it mean that Colombia will discuss the Bill 234/2009, concerning the adoption of the Madrid Protocol? Will it be any time soon?

Symposium: Geographical Indications in the EU -- Policy aspects and future regulation

Patricia Covarrubia September 14, 2015 No comments:

Image result for geographical indication

Starting a new week and I am still not able to detach from a symposium that I attended last week. The reason could be that the high standard of the speakers and the friendly debate have woken up my Latin passion. While I am not an expert on GI, I followed every single speaker with such an understanding and desire that I may have found my topic for years to come [watch up Nick!]

Yet, you may wonder why I am covering GI in the EU since this blog is dedicated to Latin America. Well, for a start I was invited to speak in the symposium (I am not sure why if as I said I am not an expert on GI) but it was not until the end of the debate that I realised a key point (I will come to this later on). The majority of speakers while assessing the situation in the EU some extended as to cover international law, bilateral trade agreements, and the basic understanding of what is protected and why, and thus, relevant to any other jurisdiction. Generally, speakers when covering GIs provided opinions on: territorial development and the creation of public goods (Dev Gangjee – University of Oxford)); the principle of coexistence between trade marks and GIs (Gail Evans – Queen Mary University of London); insight field work and stories from farmers and the registration process (Funda Lancaster DEFRA); consumer confusion (Vito Rubino - Universita del Piemonte Orientale); the controversies between EU legislation and national protection (Nicola Coppola aka Nick – University of Bournemouth); the protection of non-agricultural products (Natasha Chick – UK IPO); and the Lisbon system and the Geneva Act (Matteo Gragnani - WIPO). While the speakers focused on these issues there were also some comments or remarks noting sustainable development, know-how, and biodiversity. Actually there were two questions from the audience that were identifying cultural heritage (one coming from a heritage consultant). By writing this remarks you can just grasp the different approaches that one system (GI) may have.

Image result for geographical indication aguadeno hat

I was the last speaker and been not an expert on the area I was getting nervous by the minute. My topic was the protection of non-agricultural products in Latin America and perhaps what I brought to the table was something that maybe was not fully addressed by the previous speakers i.e. to preserve and safeguard culture. The point been that while it is important to ‘protect’ meaning preventing unauthorised or inappropriate use (IP negative right), it is also important to connect this protection to conservation of biological diversity and the rights of indigenous peoples. As I undertook to cover Latin America I gave examples from Brazil, Panama, the Andeans countries and Chile. I also indicated that GIs are not for everyone and gave the example of ‘chulucanas’ in Peru (see Rosemary Coombe). Other jurisdictions use IPs as a way to improve their quality of life (trade mark: Coopa Roca (Brazil)); or helping to reconstruct a region (Collective marks: Afloralta (Brazil)); adding value -tourism (Sello de Marca (Chile)); while for example Panama is using a specific sui generis right that helps protecting non-agricultural products GIs. Another issue that I needed to put across was that in some of the Latin American GI’s systems, the product/service become part of the goods of a nation i.e. become state property. This is an important issue since there exists amongst farmers, artisans and indigenous peoples mistrust -- resulting in having less GIs and more collective marks or nothing at all. Many of you may believe that actually when covering cultural heritage the IP regime is actually not appropriate at all, I may be of the same thought, however it is important to realise that for some products, it has helped. It has helped communities into social unity and it has helped us as citizens/consumers to create a sense of pride.

Indeed the conference raised a number of fascinating questions and I thank Nick for putting this symposium all together and for the generous sponsors that made it a reality (Grana Padano and CIIPM).

Central America's trade pact with the EU: another whopper

Jeremy December 27, 2012 No comments:

On Monday, this blog reported on the publication, on the website of the European Union's Official Journal, of the EU's trade agreement with Peru and Colombia. The post commented on its vast length at 2,605 pages. Well, that massive pagination has already been exceeded. The EU's Official has now also published the full text of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other -- and that's 2,618 pages long, not counting a further two and a half page Protocol on Cultural Cooperation. Again, it contains plenty of references to intellectual property rights and geographical indications.

What country is "Central America", you may be wondering. Well, it is defined for the purposes of the Agreement as the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama -- but not Belize -- and naturally not Mexico since that country migrated from Central America to North America, but that's another story.

In memóriam: Dr Ricardo Antequera Parilli

Patricia Covarrubia November 04, 2015 No comments:

The iptango feels proud to announce and to invite the Latin American region to the act of conferring the 'Honorary Doctorate' (post-mortem) from the University de Los Andes, Merida Venezuela to Dr Ricardo Antequera Parilli. The act will take place in the Aula Magna de la Universidad de los Andes, Tuesday 10 November, 2015 at 11.00 am.

The invitation also extends to the unveiling of the plaque by which the library of the Specialization in Intellectual Property from the University de Los Andes is to be called Dr. Ricardo Antequera Parilli, Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8.00 am.

Dr. Antequera Parilli was widely considered in the legal community to be one of the leading forces in intellectual property in South America. His career and dedication to IP spanned over four decades and encompassed achievements that included drafting some of the copyright (authors' rights) laws for several countries in Latin America, including Venezuela, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic. He was also the co-drafter of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the Treaty of the Group of Three and Decision 351 on the Common Provisions on Copyright and Neighboring Rights of the Andean Community. His expertise extended to all aspects of intellectual property law but he was without equal in copyright law.

Along with his deep impact on IP law, Dr. Antequera Parilli greatly influenced many students through his teachings at universities throughout South America and Spain. To his students, he was a brilliant scholar, a caring professor and a devoted teacher. Often described as a "walking encyclopedia of IP", he co-authored 17 books on intellectual property and published more than 150 articles. His deep knowledge of IP together with his exceptional willingness to mentor others are qualities that colleagues, as well as his students, will remember.

En hora buena!

The news is out – are you in the list?

Patricia Covarrubia May 03, 2012 1 comment:

Early on this week the blog posted the "Special 301 Report" published annually by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The Report re-evaluates the state of intellectual property rights (IPR)—to include protection and enforcement, in trading partners around the world.

From Latin America (LA), the list indicates that Argentina, Chile and Venezuela were placed in the "priority watch list" BUT does it mean that the other LA countries were given the o.k.?

I did have a look at the complete list and unfortunately the majority of the LA countries appear in the Watch List. I found Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and even a note regarding the situation of Paraguay, which is in the Monitoring List. Yet, the USTR is pleased to see the progress made by the country and it refers to a case decided in 2011 which obtained the first conviction under its new criminal laws. However, the USTR still has serious concerns regarding piracy and counterfeiting and advice the country to “intensify its customs actions and improve its cooperation with neighbouring countries Brazil and Argentina on cross-border enforcement of IPR.”

Under different headings I was looking for the LA countries and I found the following:

Trade marks and pharmaceutical products: There is concern with the “proliferation of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit pharmaceuticals in trading partners such as Brazil...Peru...” It noted that there is an increase in the “practice of shipping of counterfeit products separately from labels and packaging in order to evade enforcement efforts.” It gives the example of Russia but later on it refers to Paraguay informing that they do “facilitate these illegal activities by exporting label and packaging components to counterfeit and pirated product assemblers.” It also adds that other countries such as Mexico and China are used as transit of such labels.
Piracy over the Internet and Digital Piracy It is said that the US will work in this area as to strengthen legal regimes and enhance enforcement with countries such as: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela [notice that I referring only to Latin America countries but other countries are also listed]. In this section the USTR reports that even though piracy over the Internet is replacing physical piracy, there is still production of, and trade in, CDs and DVDs and this remains as major problems in many regions such as Paraguay.
Governmental Business software: The use of only authorized business software was also in the agenda. Paraguay and Peru appear in this heading as countries that need to adopt an “effective and transparent procedures to ensure legitimate governmental use of software.”

Can we say that Latin America was given the thumb up or thumb down? I believe that as a Region we are on the list! And unfortunately this is something not to be proud of. But who are not in the list? There is always light at the end of the tunnel and thus, the region can have a look at other counterparts and neighbours such as Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Uruguay.

Nothing wrong with old good news

Patricia Covarrubia November 16, 2011 No comments:

Back in September INTA met with some representatives of Latin America IP offices –apologies tangueros, I am not reading old newspapers I just received this information in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 66 No. 20.

What is all about?
At the 49th Session of WIPO’s General Assembly, held in Geneva INTA met with delegates from Latin America. In attendance were representatives from Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Uruguay and also present was a VIP in our world (well that is, in this blog and always in our news) Mr Jorge Avila, president of Brazil’s Institute for Industrial Property (INPI).INTA's President Gerhard Bauer highlighted the initiatives seen in Argentina, Brazil, Puerto Rico and Uruguay regarding training sessions on trade marks proceedings.

A pat on the back is always well received, it does not do any harm but on the contrary it gives motivation. Well done IP Offices!

New PCT fee tables

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr March 16, 2012 No comments:

Recently (March, 1, 2012) was published by WIPO the new PCT Fee Tables that show the amounts and currencies of the main PCT fees which are payable to the receiving Offices (ROs) and the International Preliminary Examining Authorities (IPEAs) during the international phase under Chapter I (Tables I(a) and I(b)) and under Chapter II (Table II).

For iberoamerican countries remain some special fees under special criteria. In fact, International filing fee (including the fee per sheet over 30) is reduced by 90% where the applicant or, if there are two or more applicants, each applicant fulfills the criteria indicated on the PCT resources page, for instance, when the international application is filed by an applicant who is a natural person and who is a national of and resides in one of some PCT Contracting States as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Dominican Republic Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru. The reduction is available too for applicant who is a natural person and who is a national of and resides in State wich are not PCT Contracting as Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Source: WIPO

Mexico: Plagiarism and traditional cultural expression

Patricia Covarrubia October 27, 2022 No comments:

I received an email yesterday morning with a link to the BBC Latin America News. I am always skeptical to open links due to virus (are you not?). On second thoughts, I read the link and it was clear that was a verified page and when I clicked there were some juice news for our blog 😊 The heading reads: “Ralph Lauren apologises after Mexico indigenous 'plagiarism' claim”. My reaction was, not again! It has become usual to see big business appropriating cultural designs. But I wonder whether this is due to social media and we, as a society, are more aware of it. The era of globalization surely has made us more aware of what is going on in every corner, but also may have brought in us an appetite for merchandise that is only available in certain regions, or cultures [would you agree?].

Back to the news.

The wife of the Mexican President wrote on Instagram below the photo of the claimed item

“Hey Ralph: we already realized that you really like Mexican designs, especially those that are elaborated by ancestral cultures that preserve textile tradition. However, by copying these designs you incur in plagiarism, and as you know, plagiarism is illegal and immoral. At least acknowledge it. And hopefully you will compensate the damage to the original communities that do this work with love and not for millionaire profit. @ralphlauren (These designs are by Contla and Saltillo.)”

[translation, my own]

Let’s put our IP hat on: is this plagiarism? Is there an infringement? Traditional cultural expression as such is not protected under the umbrella of IP. Yet, WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on IP and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore is working on an international instrument for their protection. [for the drafts go to this page here). The matter is that IP has a period of protection (full stop). That is the terrible reality that traditional knowledge in general suffers. Added to this, is the fact that even if it were protected by let’s say copyright, there is the argument of ‘inspiration’ that designers rely heavily on. However, there is a fine line between ‘inspiration’ and ‘copy’, and this has been reflected more in recent years (or at least we have become aware of it).

For instance, three months ago, we brought to you the news of Mexico vs Shein, for a garment deemed to be copied by the latter which contained Mayan’s traditional culture. Two years ago, we also posted about the Guna people in Panama vs Nike which contained a ‘mola’ design. I am sure there is not enough space to tell you all about this situation that seems to happen all over again, and again.

Back to the news

Ralph Lauren has apologised and noted that months ago they remove it and were surprised to see the final products on display. This may be the end of the story, but not for the communities around the world. While waiting for the WIPO international instruments, there is nothing stopping governments to pass their own national laws protecting their traditional knowledge. Yet, this would be protection on their national territory, I am afraid, but at least, it is something.

The suspicious link sent here.

TPP: civil disturbance is foreseen in Latin America

Patricia Covarrubia November 02, 2016 No comments:

The 04 of November is set to be the date where several people around Latin America are taken the streets. Organisations in Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru are planning to take this day to mobilize for ‘democracy and rejection of trade agreements' specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA which is a trade agreement presently being negotiated by 23 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) including Latin America countries such as Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and Peru). A year ago 12 states ratified the TPP. From Latin America they were: Chile, Mexico and Peru (early post here).

The call follows rejection of restrictive measures contained in these trade agreements. Accordingly the measures threaten the access to generic drugs and biosimilars, impose new trade conditions in the seed market, and restrict freedom of expression, among others. But this appears to be one side of the story -- the reason: the Office of the US Trade Representative asserts that the TPP will allow its members to “draw on the full benefits of scientific, technological, and medical innovation, and take part in development and enjoyment of new media and the arts.” However, one cannot forget the headline of this sentence “Supporting American jobs by promoting America’s innovation advantage.” This is followed by assertions such as “strong and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights is critical to U.S. economic”. These types of expressions seem to be one-sided i.e. the benefit is first for the US. However, in the US Trade Representative report we notice declarations such as that the TPP “Promote innovation and the development of new, lifesaving medicines”; “Promote affordable access to medicines, taking into account levels of development among the TPP countries and their existing laws and international commitments.”; and concluding that all IP “commitments are aligned with the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, affirming the rights of countries to take measures to promote public health.” But we all know too well that such commitments when transposed to bilateral agreements are more than what they say…one is familiar with the term TRIP-Plus.

There are indeed two sides of the story and this is tracked by the fact of the claimed ‘secret negotiation’ that went on which was for many years a source of controversy (see news here and here).
Apart from this debate it is also noticeable some other patent related issues that can also be of controversy for some LA countries:

Known product: TPP requires members to confirm that patents are available for either ‘new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product’.

Chile IP Law N° 19.039: Art 33 (e) notices that new uses of articles, objects or known elements may constitute a subject matter of invention provided that the said new use solves a problem without prior equivalent technical solution.
Mexico IP Law (last reformed published on DOF 01-06-2016): not stipulated by lawm thus do not recognise second use as a new invention.
Peru: Art 21 Decision 486 CAN notices that already patented products or processes, including the state of the technique, are not subject matter of new patents, for the simple fact that there is a new use which is different from that originally contemplated by the initial patent.
Bear in mind that second use patents are not allowed in any of the Andean Community States (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia). CAN legislation is supranational.

Grace period for disclosure: TPP grants 12 months prior the Patent Application. This is in cases where the ‘disclosure’ is done by the applicant or a third party that obtained the information from the applicant which will not be taken into account when evaluating the novelty of the patent.

Chile: Art 42(a) IP law notes that disclosures made within 12 months prior to the submission of the application will not be considered for purposes of determining the novelty criteria if the public disclosure was made by the applicant of the patent, or if the disclosure was derived from abuse and unfair practices.
Mexico's Law states that: “The disclosure of an invention shall not affect that is still considered new when within twelve months prior to the filing date of the patent application or, where applicable,
the recognized priority date, the inventor or his assignee have disclosed the invention, by any media, for the implementation of the invention or because they have exhibited a
national or international exhibition. When the corresponding application shall include the
substantiating documentation under the conditions established by the regulations of this Act.”
Peru: Art 17 Decision 486 CAN notes that it will not be taken into consideration disclosures occurred within the year preceding the date of the submission of the application if it had been raised by the applicant in cases where such disclosure come from “the inventor or his successor in title; a competent national office which, in violation of the rule governing it, publishes the content of the patent application filed by the inventor or his successor in title; or, a third party who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor or his successor in title.”

Adjusment or Extension?

'Patent Term Adjustment' (PTA) – some literature called this a patent ‘extension’, I do prefer to call it as it is: an adjustment given due to unreasonable administrative delays during the issuance of the Patent. TPP provides for the possibility of requesting a PTA.

Chile: Article 53bis1 IP Law already grants a PTA. A right holder may request within 6 months of the patent granted, a Supplementary Protection due to unjustified administrative delays.
Mexico: silent. The law does not cover this issue.
Peru: Decision 486 CAN does not cover this issue.

Many debates are seeing on regards to public health and we have covered this several times in this blog. This time it was time for a change - to cover a little bit of the procedural issues and some tips for enterprises when registering their patents abroad.