World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations. WIPO was created in 1967 "to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world."

WIPO currently has 184 member states, administers 24 international treaties and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The current Director-General of WIPO is Francis Gurry , who took office on October 1, 2008^.183 of the UM Members as well as the Holy see are Members of WIPO. 

Non-members are the states of Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marsall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and the states with the limited  recognition. Palestine has observer status.

 The predecessor to WIPO was the BIRPI (Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle, French acronym for United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property), which had been established in 1893 to administer the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industry Property.

WIPO was formally created by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property  Organization, which entered into force on April 26, 1970. Under Article 3 of this Convention, WIPO seeks to "promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world." WIPO became a specialized agency of the UN in 1974. The Agreement between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization notes in Article 2 that WIPO is responsible

"for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development, subject to the competence and responsibilities of the United Nations and its organs, particularly the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, as well as of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and of other agencies within the United Nations system."

The Agreement marked a transition for WIPO from the mandate it inherited in 1967 from BIRPI, to promote the protection of intellectual property, to one that involved the more complex task of promoting technology transfer and economic development.

Unlike other branches of the United Nations, WIPO has significant financial resources independent of the contributions from its Member States. In 2006, over 90% of its income of just over CHF 250 million  was expected to be generated from the collection of fees by the International Bureau (IB) under the intellectual property application and registration systems which it administers (the Patent Cooperation Treaty the Madrid system for trade marks and the Hague system for industrial designs?. For more information please visit official webiste at here  WIPO

Source : Wikipedia

Engaging With China Dealing With IP

China is well entrenched in the global marketplace, but with Chinese piracy reported at 90 percent, it's the third least friendly country for protecting intellectual property(IP).

China's accession into the World Trade Organization started four years ago. With this commitment to regulatory and economic restructuring, China has indeed been a country of economic opportunity for multinational corporations.

In theory, WTO accession means that WTO members can enjoy IP protections. In China, secure those patent protections carefully. Dot the i's, cross those t's and 'watch your language.' Also, anticipate litigation.

According to attorneys A. Jason Mirabito and Carol Peters, in a March 2005 article published in Chip Scale Review: "In the past there was little enforcement of IP in China. However, in 2002, Chinese courts litigated more than 6,000 civil cases involving IP issues. About 2,000 cases involved patent suits. The rest were trademark and copyright actions."

Those 2002 statistics pale compared to recent figures, reported by the International Herald Tribune: In 2005, "Chinese courts dealt with 12,205 civil intellectual property cases, an increase of 32 percent from 2003 and a few dozen two decades ago."

Consider one recent case, which demonstrates that China's legal savvy is climbing with its growing stake in US markets and the global economy. The case also demonstrates the role of US courts in patent and IP protection, along with the perseverant or 'energized' stance required by US companies threatened by counterfeit goods or the prospect of piracy.

Energizer & Eveready vs. Just about Everybody

The dispute started in the spring of 2003, when Energizer Holdings, a US company, and its subsidiary Eveready filed a lawsuit with the International Trade Commission (ITC). The complaint addressed a signature product, a long-lasting battery design —- affecting in particular a line of zero mercury-added alkaline batteries that Energizer has held a patent on for three decades. Also mentioned in the suit are games, toys, and other products manufactured with batteries whose designs are protected.

Energizer asked the ITC to issue a cease-and-desist order and to ban US imports of these products, claiming the batteries exported to the United States by the 26 manufacturers, affiliates or distributors named in the suit had infringed on Energizer's US patent. Among the multiple respondents named in the complaint, nine were Chinese manufacturers, including Fujian Nanping Nanfu. Nanfu Battery is one of China's largest alkaline battery manufacturers and suppliers. Energizer requested the ITC investigation under Section 337 of the US Tariff Act.

At the time of the original filing, China was considered the world's largest manufacturer and exporter of this specific battery with an estimated 75-80 percent of its goods being exported to overseas markets. According to a China press report, "Chinese batteries usually cost between a 10th and a third less than US-made ones, making them very popular in overseas markets."

The ITC handed down a preliminary ruling in 2004, deciding that nine manufacturers from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong infringed upon Energizer's patent, and recommended banning imports of the batteries. But four months later, the ITC closed its investigation, and ruled that Energizer's patent was invalid because it was …"indefinite as a matter of law…." Or, in the legalese: "The Commission held that Eveready's "proffer of alternative constructions of 'said zinc anode' was an admission of indefiniteness."

In plain terms, the main patent claim, or its language, was incorrectly written. Attorneys Mirabito and Peters reported that the Commission determined "there was no infringement of the Energizer Holdings patents, and the continued importation of Chinese batteries was permitted."

It Just Keeps on Going and Going…

True to the brand as "the battery that never quits," Energizer kept on "going and going," and appealed the ITC's final decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the suit, Energizer named the ITC as defendants. Energizer's main contention was that the issue regarding language was not substantial enough to invalidate the patent.

The Court's January 25, 2006 ruling, and a follow-up March 20 mandate reversed the earlier ITC opinion, finding that the ITC erred and the patent draft was written correctly enough.

"In that regard, we conclude that 'anode gel' is by implication the antecedent basis for 'said zinc anode.' The Commission's holding of invalidity on the ground of indefiniteness is reversed."

In the unanimous ruling, the Court directed the Commission to proceed in accordance with the Administrative Law Judge's prior ruling that the Energizer patent is valid, according to Legal Times analyst, Emma Shwartz.

It was a happy day at Energizer headquarters in St. Louis. "We are pleased that this case has been sent back to the ITC for review," said Michael Pophal, Senior Patent Counsel at Energizer, quoted in a company press release. "By issuing this mandate, the appeals court has cleared the way for additional inquiry into whether those companies that import mercury-free alkaline batteries into the United States are doing so illegally. 

If it is indeed determined that they are doing so illegally, the ITC will then determine the appropriate remedy for that illegal activity."

As before, Energizer will seek the general exclusion remedy in the ITC. If the ITC upholds the company's claim, this remedy will bar infringing batteries, including those made or sold by the remaining respondents from importation or sale in the US, and will permit sanction enforcement by US Customs.

What’s Next? A Changing Landscape?

Energizer expects a favorable outcome from the ITC. But even as they await the ITC review, the Internet-surfing public has been reading about the recent ITC mandate in starkly opposite terms: in China, recent press accounts erroneously have been reporting that the Court ruled in favor of Chinese manufacturers. They fail to report that the jury, with respect to the ITC, is still out.

It appears that a gentle, collaboratively toned communication between Energizer and China has helped the situation. Many of the erroneous reports have been pulled from news sites.

While Energizer seems to be battling questionable imports the longest and hardest, they aren't the only company doing battle with Chinese manufacturers and companies alleging technology violations of patents, trademarks and IP infringements. 

The litigious ranks include Hitachi-IBM and Cisco, who won its patent battle over the Shenzhen-based Huawei in 2003. Cisco eventually proved that Huawei, arguably the top Chinese provider of switches and wireless infrastructure, had copied the U.S. companies' firmware code line for line into its products. Huawei settled.

Still, other recent cases are coming to favorable conclusions for plaintiffs defending goods in China courtrooms, an indicator that China is serious about its place in the WTO and in the global economy.

-- In late 2005, java giant Starbucks Coffee won its two-year-old case against 'Xingbake' (translation Star Bucks), for trademark and logo infringement. The case was decided in Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, and was considered a landmark judgment and litmus test of China's amended trademark laws. Xingbake has filed an appeal.

-- In 2004, Swiss agribusiness and agricultural chemical maker Syngenta was awarded an apology and compensation after its patent infringement lawsuit was successfully concluded against a Chinese business group. The case was heard in a Nanjing court, one known for its expertise in intellectual property.

There is little doubt that China's government will quickly improve its IP stance, but this analyst believes the most effective pressure will come from its own domestic companies, particularly as they evolve from a heavily manufacturing-depending economy to a service and integrated products economy. This more sophisticated economic profile makes IP rights even more critical, because more Chinese companies will have more at stake when IP is violated.

Recent positive announcements make it clear that rule of law increasingly will be guiding China's economy. In the meantime, keep your intellectual property under a close watch, and build trust with your Chinese partners. Good contracts, good guanxi, and good sense will prove invaluable. Isnare, Paul Ward

Guide to Understanding Copyright Infringement

 

As you’re creating something, you may wonder what copyright infringement actually is. It’s necessary, if you’re creating a work -- albeit written, musical, videos, software or some other form -- that you know the definition of copyright infringement. This issue is very complicated, and not very easily spelled out in plain English.

Copyright infringement is defined by the jurisdiction -- the United States of America has different copyright laws than the United Kingdom, or Australia, or Russia, or even China. Because of this fact, you should first, before anything else, check the laws in your jurisdiction (country, city and province) before using something that isn’t in the public domain.

For our definition of copyright infringement, works in the public domain aren’t copyrightable. Works that aren’t copyrightable include ideas, works that aren’t eligible (150 years-old documents, or older -- think Beethoven and Frankenstein), data that isn’t categorized in a creative way (this could be a database, such as a phone book or other publicly-accessible data), or items that the owners have specified creative commons copyrights.

As you can see, copyright law is rather complicated. Wikipedia.org gives us the definition of copyright infringement as: “Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is protected by intellectual property rights law particularly the copyright in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.”

Our definition of copyright infringement includes the works of creative commons. Creative commons is an organization that allows for the copyright author to determine the uses available for people who want to use their works -- for such items as for audio, images, video, text, educational materials, and software. It allows for the copyright owner to allow people to use their works for non-commercial, commercial, no derivatives, share alike, or just by giving attribution. Creative Commons is a license granted by the copyright holder, and can be used in both online (electronic Internet) works and offline works.

The real definition of copyright infringement comes from your jurisdictions statutes. In the United States of America, our jurisdiction’s copyright laws are contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, §501 - §513. You can also find a definition of copyright infringement through such organizations such as the European Union or World Trade Organizations.

Copyright Infringement Statistics

Copyright infringement statistics, by most standards, are inflated. Most recent copyright infringement statistics cite that almost 30 percent of software is pirated in the United States of America. This means they think 30 percent of the software on your computer is illegal.

However, copyright holders have good reason to worry that we’re violating their rules: the number of suspects referred to the United States attorneys with an intellectual property lead increased twenty six percent in the period between 2002 and 2004 -- and this number is rising. Copyright infringement statistics are difficult to come by, but it’s plain to see it’s affecting every aspect of intellectual copy.

Copyright infringement statistics show a lot of violations in pirating software and music. Many unsuspecting people, from college students to thirty-something professionals, download music on a consistent basis, and often it’s not downloaded legally. Often times, someone will download a song off a MySpace or YouTube page, without giving thought to who owns the copyright and if it’s legal for them to have it.

Copyright infringement statistics, brought to us by the music recording industry, would have us believe that online infringement is seriously hurting the recording industry. Statistics also show that many people are downloading games off the Internet. With the litany of games available to us -- from complete alternate worlds such as World of Warcraft to the more mainstream “The Sims” series -- people are clamoring for PC games. They’re fun, intelligent games that play on a system everyone has -- a computer. Because of this, people are always looking for new games to play and download, and they may download a game without knowing that it’s not “freeware” (as many Internet games are).

In addition to computer games, copyright infringement statistics also show that movies are downloaded in abundance on the Internet. Many peer to peer file distribution sites and programs (such as Kazaa) allow transferring of large files; plus they’re easy to find online. Using a tool provided by one of many suppliers, users can search for any item they like -- and, of course, the system is abused and people download copyrighted movies and entire DVDs instead of publicly available works.

Copyright infringement also branches into written works, such as articles, books, poems, etc. Many times, a student will copy a paragraph or two without realizing the implications of such copying. While they may think of it as “borrowing,” if it’s used on a grander scale, the person could be opening themselves up to a large court fight, especially if it’s used commercially.

As you can see, copyright infringement statistics show us that many people use copyrighted works illegally. Do your best diligence when using another’s work -- and ask for permission every time you want to use something that you haven’t created. Chances are, if you just ask the question up front you’ll save yourself from becoming a copyright infringement statistic and save yourself from a major lawsuit.Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com

 

Copyright Infringement Cases Can Teach Us To Obey Copyright Laws ?

 

Copyright infringement cases can be both costly and time consuming. Considering copyright infringement is something that isn’t as easily defined as theft or speeding, there are numerous copyright infringement cases changing the way copyright law is viewed in the U.S. By reviewing a few of these copyright infringement cases, you can get a better idea of what is, and what is not, acceptable use of copyrighted works.

As a forward, however, you’ll need to know something about copyright law. Most copyright lawsuits are brought to the courts because a copyright owner has found their copyright is being used outside the copyright laws.

This usually means the copyright holder hadn’t been asked for permission to use the work; or if they had, the work is not being used in an agreed-upon context or they have not been paid royalties. The copyright infringement cases, listed below, sample of what goes to the Supreme Court in copyright infringement.

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co (6th Cir. 1996)
This copyright infringement case was brought to the Supreme Court in 1996 regarding the copyright of a database. The Supreme Court, in this instance, decided that compilations of data (such as in a database) are only protected by copyright when they are “arranged and selected in an original manner.” Although the level of originality needed to make the database copyright-able is not very high, the pages of a directory (such as a phone book) are not protected because the data contained therein is arranged geographically, then alphabetically.

Because of this, the data was not original enough to warrant a copyright infringement charge. The competing telephone company was allowed to tap into their competitors’ database and use that data in their own work without liability.

Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc (6th Cir 1996)
This case has to do with the Fair Use law, which is defined in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. In this case, a photocopying service was sued for copyright infringement for making “course packs” for the University of Michigan. In this case, a course pack was a group of reading materials assigned by a professor -- then the course pack was bound together by a professional copy shop.

In the Fair Use system, there is a system available for payment of copyright fees to publishers whose works are used in course materials. The printing shop owner refused to pay the copyright cost. When it went to the Supreme Court, they analyzed the Fair Use code and found that it was NOT Fair Use, and the printing shop had to pay the copyright costs.

As you can see, copyright infringement cases are cases in which someone violates the rights of a copyright owner, as provided by 17 USC §106, or of the author as provided in §106A. These copyright infringement cases can be taken to either criminal or civil court, and can carry with it a hefty fine.

Copyright infringement cases are brought upon people who violate copyrights every day. In recent times, you’ll find many copyright cases in relation to electronic copyrights -- such as those you’d find on a website or PDF file, as well as other digital media such as music and audio files.

It’s probable that you’ve seen copyright cases brought against the common person -- such as a child or family -- for downloading digital music in the form of MP3s. In the current Internet age, it’s not surprising to see so many music and video copyright cases brought to us because of peer to peer file sharing made possible by the Internet. You can be certain that until people know the rules of copyright, and downloading copyrighted material from the Internet, we’ll see many more copyright cases.

 

How To Protect Your Own Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property is term commonly used nowadays but only few people have really grasped its meaning. Not too many people understand the legalities involved. Intellectual Property is any intangible asset that consists of human knowledge and ideas. This includes patents, copyrights, trademarks and software. Wherever you are in the world, it is necessary for an individual, a business or an organization to protect and secure its trademark or identifiers. It is powerful in the sense that it can bring in economic growth and increase wealth; may it be for an individual or a business.

Vast information is rising and technology has been constantly evolving. Anything can go wrong since abuses to one's trademark are inevitable. So being online means grasping the challenges of intellectual property: to protect what may be one of your major assets and respecting the rights of intellectual property owners and users.

Be always on the lookout to protect your own interests. A responsible intellectual property owner must conduct a review of his or her intellectual property assets constantly.

Here are some tips to secure what it rightfully yours.

1. Registration - Get your ideas, trademark, or patent registered.

2. Invest in getting legal advice

3. Research and read - Although it is best to listen to what your lawyer has to say, it is still smart to bone up on knowledge regarding intellectual property.

4. Portray a complete image - See to it that you have already considered all the angles involved in your concept before you let the whole world know about it. A good deal of planning with thorough research is very significant.

5. Respect the work and ideas of others - The idea of others may help you in formulating your own trademark but see to it that your concept is all original. As much as you want to protect what is your intellectual property, others are also securing their own.

6. Get real! - It does not come hand in hand that when you have an idea, it will be a great success. It takes an extra mile of effort to make the brand a success.

7. Be competitive - You may not have a competition now but others may come up with the same concept in the near future. So why will you put off protecting your brand. Legal protection will give you the chance to participate in entrepreneurship seminars where you can learn more marketing strategies.

8. Non-disclosure Agreement - This document is necessary to ensure that business partners or new hires will keep the company's trade secrets protected.

9. Legal Security - The national government has existing laws that increasingly recognizes the value of intellectual property and is taking steps to protect your rights of ownership.

10. Have patience - Continue to develop your concept while the license or copyright to your trademark is being processed. This process takes time but our trademark lawyers are here to assist you and make things as convenient as possible.

 Notary public parramatta sydney takes pride in offering professional legal services that touch the lives of others, and positively influence the community around us. It is our pleasure to serve people and serve the community. We believe that this approach is both generous and provides an easy to understand practical solution in what can often be a complex logistical problem. ezinearticles,