«Програма аташе з питань прав на інтелектуальну власність Бюро з реєстрації патентів і торговельних марок США: історія, діяльність та проблемні питання прав на інтелектуальну власність в регіоні.»
Дональд Таунсенд, регіональний аташе з питань захисту прав інтелектуальної власності в державах Росії, Грузії та СНД
Similar to Програма аташе з питань прав на інтелектуальну власність Бюро з реєстрації патентів і торговельних марок США: історія, діяльність та пробл (20)
Програма аташе з питань прав на інтелектуальну власність Бюро з реєстрації патентів і торговельних марок США: історія, діяльність та пробл
1. The USPTO IPR Attaché Program:
History, Activities, And IPR Issues In
The Region
Donald Townsend
Regional Intellectual Property Rights Attaché
United States Patent & Trademark Office
U.S. Embassy Moscow
2. The USPTO IPR Attaché Program
• Formally instituted in 2006 to promote high standards of
IP protection and enforcement internationally
• IPR Attachés, most of whom are attorneys, are now
deployed worldwide, including Moscow, Russia, a regional
post which covers all of the CIS, including Ukraine
• Work with regional governments and industry stakeholders
to address IP issues, including protection, enforcement,
and legislative reform
3. Regional IPR Attaché- USPTO Moscow
• Addresses both protection and enforcement; this
involves interfacing with both national IP offices,
as well as various enforcement agencies and
higher level government officials
• Works with USPTO HQ, USTR, US Embassy
• Meets regularly with industry and industry
organizations to hear concerns
• Conducts Training Programs Related to IPR
4. Regional IP Action Plans
The United States currently has IP
Action Plans with both Russia (signed
December 2012), and Ukraine (signed
October 2010). These Action Plans stress
improvements in enforcement of IPR’s. A
copy of same can be obtained at
www.ustr.gov
5. Action Plan Enforcement Provision
Example
The US, Russia and Ukraine Have Agreed to
Increase the Level of IP Enforcement, including:
•Conducting enforcement actions against
counterfeiting, piracy (including software piracy and
unauthorized camcording), and the circumvention of
technological protection measures and encouraging
the imposition of penalties and sentences that deter
further violations.
6. Action Plan Enforcement Provision
Example
• Conducting unannounced raids of plants, retail
outlets, and warehouses to detect, seize and, where
appropriate, destroy goods that violate intellectual
property rights.
• Seize and destroy goods that violate intellectual
property rights and the equipment and materials
used to produce them.
• Promote transparency and public awareness of
actions to enforce IPR.
7. Action Plan Enforcement Provision
Examples (continued)
• Increase the frequency of open-air market
inspections and take action against the sale of
counterfeit and pirated goods.
• Modify the portfolios of a number of Interior
Ministry officers to include IPR enforcement and
inspection, and provide training for the designated
officers.
8. Regional IPR Concerns Include:
• Flow of counterfeit goods (TM and copyright infringing
goods) from China, via the Customs Union/Kyrgyzstan-
China border, and into Ukraine via Odessa port;
• At times insufficient cooperation between Customs and
rightholders; and
• Internet piracy.
9. Thank You!
Questions? Comments?
Donald E. Townsend, Jr.
Regional IPR Attaché
US Embassy Moscow
donald.townsend@trade.gov
10. Thank You!
Questions? Comments?
Donald E. Townsend, Jr.
Regional IPR Attaché
US Embassy Moscow
donald.townsend@trade.gov
Editor's Notes
Currently, there is not only a lack of implementation of the law, but also no stated operational aspect/process in place. For example, there should be a process in place that ensures that once a product has been registered by the Ministry of Health (MOH), the innovator will receive a notification from the MOH concerning the term of exclusivity (including expiration date), so that it can be used for all purposes (including enforcement). Further, there should be some mechanism to ensure that the new legislation is not being applied only partially, i.e. that foreign innovators will not face situations in which local applicants could challenge the exclusivity just because the regulations are not specific enough. Another important aspect is to make it very clear when and if it would be possible for a generic applicant to submit bio-equivalence tests to the MOH during the exclusivity period.