“The main focus of the 2011 Evaluation Seminar is sharing good practices in Evaluation of Intellectual Property.”
and they go on to list a number of possible topics:
Evaluation of the effects of intellectual property aimed to promote innovation and technology
Evaluation of the effects of intellectual property on traditional knowledge
Evaluation of the impact of intellectual property capacity building
Evaluation of the effects of safeguarding creative heritage
Evaluation of the effects of global IP protection systems
Evaluation of the impact of programs aimed to modernized and improve infrastructure of IP offices
Evaluation of the effects of the implementation of IP international treaties
Evaluation of the impact of IP awareness raising programs
Evaluation of the effects of IP technical assistance including to SMEs
Evaluation of the effects of public and private partnerships to promote the use of the IP system
Evaluation of the results of existing cooperation among UN, bilateral and multilateral bodies in the area of intellectual property
Evaluation of the impact of the assistance provided by UN, bilateral and multilateral organizations to enable local innovators and research institutions to use IP as a means of owning, protecting and exploiting their research results.
Evaluation of the impact of intellectual property -related policies and initiatives aimed to promote the transfer and dissemination of technology
Evaluation of the impact of intellectual property -related policies and initiatives aimed to support entrepreneurs and in particular start up businesses in the information technology and web based areas
Evaluation of the impact of intellectual property -related policies and measures aimed to promote transfer and dissemination of technology to developing countries
Evaluation of the impact of intellectual property rights aimed at the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology
Evaluation of the impact of intellectual property activities on gender or human rights
“A new on-line tool launched by WIPO … will make it easier to search over 640,000 records relating to internationally protected trademarks, appellations of origin and armorial bearings, flags and other state emblems as well as the names, abbreviations and emblems of intergovernmental organizations. The Global Brand Database allows free of charge, simultaneous brand-related searches across multiple collections.”
Thanks to WIPO for another free resource. It is part of WIPO Gold, a “free public resource which provides a one-stop gateway to WIPO’s global collections of searchable IP data”
Love it or loathe it, no matter where in the world you are, the chances of finding Coca Cola are pretty high. It was interesting to read therefore that
“for the first time [Coca Cola] finds itself outside the list of the world’s top 10 most valuable brands, according to the annual Brand Finance 500 study”
The article concludes:
“…although there is a lot more to brands than trademarks, it does means that if you are working in-house as a trademark operator, the job that you are doing is absolutely vital to the maintenance (as well as the creation, of course) of profoundly important assets. I am sure that this is not huge news to the trademark practitioners reading this blog, but I wonder how many other people appreciate it. My suspicion is that it is not as many as should be the case.”
Remember the confusing “look & feel” of the WIPD (World Intellectual Property Database) site and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation)? See our post “WIPD hopes to be confused with WIPO; spot the difference!“ Well, we can now take a small breath of relief. The WIPD logo has been amended, diminishing the likelihood of confusion. WIPO’s actions must have had some effect!
You can check it for yourself and see whether it is still a cause for concern. See the screen shots below of WIPO and then WIPD’s home pages.
I read with alarm the IPKat post last week regarding the WIPD site.
“Friday fantasies“. Thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention IPKat.
The post concerns a website calling itself WIPD, which mimics the branding of WIPO and requests fees for dubious and badly defined services. Even the strapline is similar; WIPO = “Encouraging Creativity and Innovation” and WIPD = “Imagine Creativity and Innovation.” Whilst I easily found their list of fees, I couldn’t find the mechanism for processing them. Nonetheless the site is confusing in its content and closely follows the “look and feel” of the WIPO site, so at the very least it is compromising the integrity of the WIPO brand. See for yourself!
“The IPKat is horrified that scam-merchants such as WIPD should be enabled to masquerade as a United Nations Agency in order to deceive and rip off gullible patent applicants, from whom it seeks substantial funds for its worthless services…”
The IPKat called on “WIPO to do something about it“.. and that “all patent practitioners to be aware of this rogue enterprise.“ I share IPKats disbelief that this is continuing. It is nothing if not ironic…
“The third IWG, to take place from February 28 to March 4, 2011, will address the subject of intellectual property and genetic resources. The Committee transmitted a series of existing documents to IWG 3, and suggested that IWG 3 prepare a draft text of objectives and principles as well as a draft list of options for future work. These would be transmitted for consideration by the Committee at its next session in May 2011. Discussions on genetic resources also saw the introduction of new proposals by the African Group and by Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, and the United States of America. [The Kat suspects that, in practice, this will be the most keenly-contested area since the possibility of financial reward is so great and the interest in sharing it is correspondingly high].”
And I have to agree, the original article has MORE than its fair share of acronyms – something we of the CGIAR’s CAS-IP know all too much about…
(thanks to Francesca Re Manning for sending me this link)
“In order to better understand the link between intellectual property rights, technology transfer and development, an analysis was recently conducted of the expectations of developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, of technology transfer.”
Interestingly he notes:
“The analysis shows that in order to foster development through technology, it is necessary to put into place an efficient and flexible intellectual property rights system and to promote local innovation.”
I wasn’t able to find the text of the analysis he spoke about, possibly it was in French originally? If anyone has the link I would be grateful if they could add it to the comments section.
“The adoption of a Development Agenda by WIPO has to integrate the notion that intellectual property should serve first and foremost the promotion and protection of local innovation. The international intellectual property system as it is devised is not doing enough to support local inventiveness.”
“…profiles the IP experiences of inventors, creators, entrepreneurs, and researchers. The case studies featured in the database demonstrate how IP works in the real world and how IP rights can be used to promote innovation.”
Well done and thank you to WIPO for making these new resources available to all!
Let’s not forget the minds of the NPI and the information they have produced that can complement this collection. The “IP Compendium” is an insider’s view to the IP systems in some developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. And ongoing case studies produced by the group provide more of the practical detail of what that means. See the list of NPI publications HERE.
Last month WIPO released 2009 figures on levels of international patent filings under WIPO’s Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Visit the WIPO site HERE for some analysis and key data, as well as the video/audio press conference address by Mr. Francis Gurry, DG of WIPO.
With regards to developing country activity the item quoted Mr. Gurry as saying:
“”In implementing the WIPO Development Agenda, WIPO is working very closely with member states to develop and roll-out projects that will enable all countries to reap the benefits of innovation and the knowledge economy” said Mr. Gurry. “In this context, maximizing participation in the PCT is a key priority. Membership of the PCT offers an opportunity for countries to bring their national patenting processes in line with international standards helping to create a more attractive investment environment. It further offers local companies a cost-effective means of obtaining patent protection in multiple countries” he added. “
“the discussions on traditional knowledge (Article 8j) developed reasonably well. It seemed however that too much caution was taken in relation to the mechanisms to incorporate the text of new submissions into the draft of the international ABS regime; the result was that ‘real’ negotiations on this document did not even start.”
I agree that this is a shame as a Protocol, once incorporated into national laws, could change radically the way that research and innovation are carried out, as well as turning a very convoluted document like the CBD into something more concrete and manageable. On a positive conclusive note though Dr Chiarolla adds:
“it was encouraging however to see how many countries were discussing openly and frankly the issue of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) of indigenous and local communities”.
Is WIPO’s alleged push towards traditional knowledge really working?
Post written by Francesca Re Manning, consultant to CAS-IP