The Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development participated in the Philippine Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Summit held on October 20, 2014 at Marriott Hotel, Pasay City.
With the theme “Strengthening Intellectual Property Enforcement and Adjudication in the 21st Century,” the summit gathered the country’s intellectual property rights luminaries and that of other global organizations during the activity to tackle issues on IPR enforcement and adjudication juxtapose with emerging IP concerns.
Present during the activity were Gregory L. Domingo, Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry; Atty. Ricardo R. Blancaflor, Director General of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines; Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; Judge Bernice B. Donald, US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Judge Jack H.C. Wang and Judge Huei-Ju Tsai, Intellectual Property Court of Taiwan; Luisa Irely Aquique Pineda, Director, Mexican Institute of Industrial Property; and Atty. Jean-Pierre Maeder, member-representative of the Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP)
For the Philippines, the summit was a timely activity to further inspire the growing intellectual property awareness and protection in the country as proved by its having been removed from the USTR 301 Special Report Watch List.
“Watch List” countries are identified by the annual Special 301 Report as having serious intellectual property rights deficiencies.
Pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement of 1994, under its Special 301 provision, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on IP protection.
Establishing its IPR commitment and advocacy, IPOPhil and the government’s anti-piracy task force conducted a series of seizures of counterfeit products, which as of the second week of October this year, has reached a value of P9.528 billion, breaking the 2011 record of P8.384 billion.
The country’s judicial machinery in terms of its ability to handle IPR cases, however, remains weak. Of the 1,155 IPR cases filed in various courts, mostly in the National Capital Region, only 93 have been decided while 607 are pending, 223 dismissed, and 232 archived.
Director General Ricardo Blancaflor of IPO explained that most of the cases that are either pending or dismissed could be attributed to the lack of interest on the part of the IPR holder or their propensity to settle the cases amicably.
Dealing on the issue of protracted proceedings on IPR cases as experienced by the Philippines, Judge Jack H.C. Wang and Judge Huei-Ju Tsai both from the Intellectual Property Court of Taiwan, laid down Taiwan’s legal framework which enables them to decide IPR cases within five months unlike in the Philippines wherein similar cases are decided in years.
Attorney Brian Law Yew Foo of Malaysia, on the other hand, explained how his country, walked out from 301 through better legislative strategies such as shifting the burden of proof to the alleged infringer or counterfeiter instead of burdening the complainant in pursuing his cause.
Likewise discussed in the summit was the legality of donation of counterfeit goods for charitable purposes, as that in the case of the victims of Typhoon Haiyan. Though couched as a mere opinion, in the absence of an actual controversy, legal practitioners who were present during the summit, surmised that since counterfeit goods are beyond the commerce of men, legality of transfer even in the form of donation, cannot be countenanced.
Enjoining every nation’s support for the cause of IPR, Atty. Jean-Pierre Maeder, BASCAP member representative, estimated the global value of counterfeit and pirated products to reach $1.77 trillion by 2015 and how it is likely to enrich and empower global syndicated crimes, thus the need for a strong enforcement coordination among countries and their respective agencies.
To keep abreast with IP issues and concerns, PCAARRD maintains its Intellectual Property Core Group as a necessary complement of its technology transfer activities. The Group was responsible in the formulation of the Council’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property Policy Services and Procedures.