Tag Archives: WIPO

CALL FOR PAPERS: Learning from Existing Evaluation Practices on the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property on Development

An e-newsletter yesterday first brought this call for papers to my attention (thanks PIIPA who sent it out). 

WIPO are organising a seminar in October at their HQ in Switzerland entitled: “Learning from Evaluations of the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property (IP) on Development

Deadline for submission is 24th June, 2011.

The WIPO communication states:

“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

The deadline for evaluation abstract submissions is June 24th, 2011. Visit the WIPO site for more details for application.  An honorarium and basic travel costs will be covered by the organisers.

Branding stories; WIPO new online brand-search tool and Coca Cola

WIPO have launched another new tool this month.  See “WIPO Launches New On-Line Tool to Facilitate Brand Searches“. From their press release:

“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”

And the Coca Cola reference?  Well, whilst on the subject of brands, I was reading the Intellectual Asset Management blog.  They posted an item: “The Coca-Cola brand suffers a sharp fall in value as Google hits number one

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.”

Update on WIPO/WIPD; still causing confusion?

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.

(thanks to Francesca Re Manning)

WIPD hopes to be confused with WIPO; spot the difference!

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 official WIPO logo (legitimate)

the official WIPO logo (legitimate)

WIPD logo (dubious)

WIPD logo (dubious)

The IPKat entry on Friday was an update from last week’s post in which they said:

“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…

WIPO, ICG and the meeting of working groups on TK and Genetic Resources

I wanted to repost this from the IPKat, entitled “Progress on folklore, culture, genetic resources: ‘streamlining’ in sight.”  They are referring, with comment, to the WIPO media release “IGC Makes Significant Progress, Sets the Stage for Working Groups on GRs and TK

The following may be of interest to our readers:

“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)

Technology transfer in sub-Saharan Africa, IPRs, development and the WIPO Agenda

I should have referenced this item some months ago, but it slipped my attention when it was published back in August on IP Watch.  (I think I was probably off on holiday!)  “The Relationship Between IP, Technology Transfer, and Development“.  Today I spotted the item cross posted on other blogs (thanks CTA and Zunia!)

The author, Cheikh Kane writes:

“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.

For more info on the WIPO Development agenda visit “Development Agenda for WIPO“.  Including details of the 45 adopted recommendations.

The author sums up by saying:

“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.”

Data and case studies on IP around the world

Some new offerings from WIPO were recently announced: WIPO Lex and IP Advantage (we saw it reported on the news area of the IPR helpdesk site)

WIPO Lex which slots into the WIPO gold portal is described as:

“…an on-line global IP reference resource that provides up-to-date information on national IP laws and treaties.”

 IP Kat rightly said:

“A dip into WIPO Lex will be sure to fulfil the IP desires of even the most fact obsessed.” 

 The second resource is IP Advantage which:

“…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.

 So, if you believe that the devil is in the detail then this 2nd tool is particularly interesting!  A couple of examples of the case studies included are: Branding of Egyptian Cotton and Linking Collective Marks with Growth and Development (Milk products in Peru).

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.

WIPO Gold & USPTO on Google; IPR data available to all

A great new resource from WIPO launched earlier this month.  http://www.wipo.int/wipogold/en/ .  Read the WIPO press release here.  At the same time it was noted on IP-Watch that the USPTO have also launched access to a bulk of data in a collaboration with Google.  View the USPTO press release here.

June 2010 was a good month for access to information concerning IP rights!

(thanks to Helen & Maria who both sent me the WIPO link)

WIPO; 2009 international patent filing figures (under the PCT)

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 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); comment on meetings that concluded this month

A few days ago the meeting on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Montreal was concluded.  First, the sixth meeting of the Ad-hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions (Article 8(j) WG 6) of the CBD was held (from 2 to 6 November), and then the eighth meeting on Access Sharing (9-15 November).  You can see a summary of the highlights along with related documents here http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/wg8j-6/ and here http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/abs8/

Dr Claudio Chiarolla, expert, UNEP ABS Knowledge Hub of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), made the following comments:

“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