Chair’s Report to APEC CTI on the
Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group VI
FINAL
Canberra, 5-6 March 1998
Introduction
1. The Intellectual Property Rights Expert Group (IPEG) VI was held in Canberra, on 5-6 March 1998 in conjunction with APEC-IP Australia/IP Workshop on the Asia Pacific IP Office in the New Millennium, which was organized by Australia.
2. The meeting was attended by representatives from Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; thePeople’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; the Republic of Korea; Mexico; New Zealand, Papua New Guinea; theRepublic of the Philippines; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand and the United States of America. Mr Rod Smith, the Vice Chair of the CTI and a representative of the APEC Secretariat also attended. A representative from South Pacific Forum also participated as observer. The list of participants is attached in Annex 1.
3. At first, the meeting was chaired by Mr Shigeo Takakura, Senior Appeal Examiner, Japanese Patent Office (JPO), Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan. Mr Yoshifumi Saeki, Director for International Cooperation, Japanese Patent Office, Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan took over the Chair after he was appointed to the new Chair.
4. In the course of the meeting, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade of Australia, the Hon Tim Fischer, MP, welcomed all participants to the meeting. Recognizing growing importance of IPRs, he emphasized significant successes which the IPEG had yielded and referred to collective actions.
Agenda Item 1: Opening
5. The outgoing Chair extended a warm welcome to all delegates and expressed appreciation to Australia for the warm hospitality. The outgoing Chair also thanked the APEC Secretariat for its continuous support to the meetings.
6. The outgoing Chair confirmed that this meeting should be called ‘the IPEG VI meeting,’ taking into account that the IPEG had been succeeded from the IPR Get-together which had held five meetings.
Agenda Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
7. Australia proposed to discuss under item 8 its issues paper on biotechnology in a manner that discussion would be taken with off record to encourage an informal talk.
8. The meeting unanimously adopted the agenda which is contained in the Annex2.
Agenda Item 3: Appointment of The New Chair and Vice Chair
9. The outgoing Chair expressed his gratitude for the IPEG members’ contribution towards APEC activities in the field of Intellectual Property Rights. Members appreciated the outgoing Chair for his chairmanship.
10. Mr Yoshifumi Saeki was nominated as the new Chair of the IPEG and Mr Sivakant Tiwari of Singapore as Vice Chair. The meeting unanimously endorsed their appointments to the new Chair and the Vice Chair. The new Chair asked for the members’ continuous support.
Agenda Item 4: Report to and instructions from the CTI
11. The outgoing Chair reported on the outline of his report to the CTI in Penang on 19-20 February 1998 as well as the outcomes of the CTI.
12. The Vice Chair of the CTI briefed the meeting on the 1998 CTI Work Plan and highlighted the tasks pertaining to IPEG such as: early voluntary sectoral liberalization; enhancement of works on trade facilitation; responses to ABAC recommendations; and possible TILF outcomes in 1998.
13. As regards early voluntary sectoral liberalization, Mexico proposed that member economies should accelerate some of the collective action items including well-known marks; procedures for trademark registration and patent granting; and enforcement of copyrights and neighboring rights.
14. Mexico also circulated its paper on the protection of geographic indications for future discussion. Mexico invited member economies to submit to Mexico preliminary comments on the paper by the end of May so that Mexico could revise it for discussion at the next meeting of IPEG.
15. The APEC Secretariat briefed the meeting on the guidelines on participation of members-designate as observers and asked members to advise the APEC Secretariat of any amendments to a list of CTI Intellectual Property Rights Contacts, if any.
Agenda Item 5: Collective Actions
Item a: Deepening the dialogue
16. Japan reported that the APEC IPR Event Calendar had been updated and uploaded to the JPO Homepage. It also reported that the Calendar included a contact point of each event, as agreed at the last meeting of the IPR Get-together. Japan requested each economy to submit further information on IPR events. In response, some members informed the meeting of the events to be held during 1998.
17. It was agreed that members would submit to Japan written information on IPR event by the end of March, if any.
Item b: Survey of laws and regulations
<Survey Part I>
18. Australia reported that 15 economies had submitted their information on laws and regulations [Survey Part I] and presented the compilation of the information.
19. Japan reported that the consolidated information had been uploaded to the JPO Homepage and been hotlinked with the APEC Homepage.
<Survey of Jurisprudence, Administrative Guidelines and Activities of Related Organizations>
20. Australia reported that it had received surveys on jurisprudence and administrative guidelines from 7 members and on activities of related organizations from 6 members. Australia circulated both compiled surveys.
21. Australia suggested that both surveys could be conducted in more detail by utilizing APEC TILF Special Account. Australia will be invited to circulate to members an initial proposal for seeking 1999 APEC TILF Special Account for comments by the end of April.
Item c: Contact point lists
22. Australia reported that 16 members had provided Australia with update information on their contact points and that the updated contact point lists had been uploaded to the APEC Homepage.
23. It also explained its proposal that a pamphlet would be produced in English and disseminated to publicize the contact point lists, and suggested a possible way to implement the proposal.
24. It was agreed that the pamphlet would be disseminated by being inserted to intellectual property rights journals and other appropriate means. Australia will prepare a draft of the pamphlet for comments of the member economies by the end of May.
Item d: Well-known trademarks
25. Thailand presented the revised questionnaire on the information on the practices concerning the protection of well-known marks (IPEG I 5-d).
26. The questionnaire was approved with some modification (as attached in Annex 3).
27. Members agreed to reply to the questionnaire by the end of April so that Thailand could circulate to member economies the compilation of the replies with a proposal on a next step in this area by the end of June.
Item e: Simplification and standardization of administrative systems
<Trademark Mailbox proposed by the US>
28. The United States answered questions which have been raised by members economies, and suggested that Trademark Mailbox could proceed among members interested rather than within APEC framework.
29. Some members expressed their support for Trademark Mailbox, based on the recognition that it would meet business sectors’ needs. Some other members requested further clarification.
30. Taking into account the instructions given by the CTI concerning activities assisting business, members reached a consensus that Trademark Mailbox should be kept in collective action (iteme) while it would be discussed and elaborated among members interested on bilateral basis. This manner of discussion will be explicitly stated in the Collective Action Plans.
31. It was noted that the IPEG members could be informed of the progress of bilateral discussions under the item of ‘other business’ at future meetings of the IPEG.
32. The United States will be invited to circulate to member economies a revised proposal of Trademark Mailbox by one month before the next meeting of the IPEG.
<Information Exchange proposed by Mexico>
33. Mexico reported that it had received information on current IPR administrative systems from 9 members and had circulated a compilation of the information among member economies (IPEG I 5-e.2.1). It also explained its proposal of evaluation outline as a next step of this collective action (IPEG I 5-e.2.2).
34. Mexico’s proposal was approved with a slight amendment (as attached in Annex 4). Mexico will prepare and circulate a draft of analysis and guideline by the end of June.
35. It was suggested that the compilation of the information should be opened to the public through the Internet in view of its possible benefits. Members agreed to the suggestion. The APEC Secretariat stated that it was ready to carry out the work of uploading to the APEC Homepage with members’ assistance.
36. It was agreed that members which had not submitted their information or needed amendments to their own information should do so by the end of May so that Mexico could pass to the APEC Secretariat the revised compilation of the information in electronic form by the end of June.
<IP Information Mall proposed by Japan>
37. Japan briefed member economies on its revised proposal for IP Information Mall and a draft questionnaire concerning users’ needs for IP information (IPEG I 5-e.3). It also suggested that the reply to the questionnaire would be included on the Internet as well as available in hard copy.
38. The meeting endorsed Japan’s proposal. Member economies agreed that they would collect the replies in written forms from their own constituencies and forward them to Japan by the end of May. Member economies also agreed to ask business sectors to reply to the questionnaire using the Internet by the same deadline. Japan will consolidate all inputs by the end of July.
Item f: Enforcement
39. Mexico reported that it had received information on IPR enforcement system from 11 members and had circulated a compilation of the information among member economies (IPEG I 5-f.1). Mexico also explained its proposal of evaluation outline (IPEG I 5f.2).
40. It was agreed that members who had not submitted their information should do so by the end of April so that Mexico would prepare and circulate an analysis of the compilation of the information by the end of May.
41. Concerning the second step, members also agreed to submit written comments on Mexico’s proposal by the end of May and discuss this matter at the next meeting of the IPEG. Mexico will be invited to circulate its revised proposal by the end of June.
Item g: Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and technical cooperation
42. The Republic of Korea briefed member economies on its initial proposal for technical cooperation facilitation.
43. The proposal was agreed with a amendment (as attached in Annex 5). It was agreed that members which could offer technical cooperation would provide Korea with outlines of their cooperation by the end of June.
44. Australia emphasized that it would be happy to consider training proposals outside those indicated in Korea’s final proposal, and encouraged member economies to approach Australia bilaterally with a view to developing technical cooperation projects on a case-by-case basis, subject to available funding.
45. Korea also proposed to prepare initial proposals for seeking 1999 APEC TILF Special Account funding to implement the collective measures listed in its technical cooperation paper.
46. Taking into account the procedures and schedule for seeking 1999 APEC TILF Special Account, the meeting agreed that Korea would prepare and circulate the draft initial proposals by the middle of April. Member economies that would have suggestions on the proposals are kindly requested to submit to Korea the suggestions well before the middle of April.
Enhancement of Collective Action Plans
47. The Chair suggested that the review in 1998 of Collective Action Plans (CAPs) could proceed in a same manner as last year’s review.
48. It was agreed that this year’s review would be forwarded in accordance with the schedule prescribed in Annex 6.
49. In addition to the annual review of CAPs, Australia proposed to enhance CAPs with a view to advancing the outcomes of the IPEG for the next three (3) years. Japan, as the Convenor will prepare a draft proposal on the enhanced CAPs in consultation with Australia before the next meeting of the IPEG (please refer to Annex 6).
50. It was agreed that each lead economy would submit to Japan a stocktake report on each collective action item in accordance with a format prepared by Australia by the middle of June.
Agenda Item 6: Partner for Progress (PFP) Project
51. Japan reported on the results of the second APEC/PFP Course on Management of Industrial Property Rights held in Thailand in November-December 1997.
52. Japan also reported that the third APEC/PFP Course would be held in Thailand, as endorsed by the CTI in Penang in February 1998 and that Japan was now developing the course in detail based on members’ comments. The General Information on the course will be circulated in June, 1998.
Agenda Item 7: Business Sectors’ Views
53. Japan reported on “APEC-area Intellectual Property Rights Business Conference” held in Osaka in October 1997 and a suggestion made by Keidanren, Japan Federation of Economic Organizations. The suggestion included the promotion of educational and enlightenment activities concerning intellectual property rights.
54. Taking into account ABAC recommendation and Keidanren’s suggestion, Japan expressed its informal willingness to hold a joint forum between public and business sectors in conjunction with the meeting of IPEG in the first quarter of 1999 in Fukuoka prefecture, Japan.
55. The APEC Secretariat drew the attention of the meeting to a section of IPR in the table on APEC Response to ABAC Recommendation which was circulated to the SOM I held in Penang in February 1998. The meeting noted the Chair would revise the table and circulate the revision to member economies for comments before the Chair submits it to the APEC Secretariat.
56. The meeting agreed that the Chair would write a letter to ABAC in order to identify an appropriate contact with whom the IPEG would have an informal talk in order to better incorporate ABAC interests into the IPEG agenda.
Agenda Item 8: Policy Dialogue
<Biotechnology>
57. Australia briefed member economies on its issues paper on biotechnology and stressed the importance of discussion on the matter.
58. Members agreed to submit to Australia their comments on the paper by the end of April. Australia will circulate the comments received and prepare another issue paper and a draft of questionnaire by the end of June for discussion at the next meeting of the IPEG.