Lead News Story
Australia commits to safe harbour expansion The Australian Government has committed to expanding the country’s safe harbour provisions to the educational, cultural and disability sectors. In its response to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, the government said it supported the committee’s recommendation to expand the safe harbour rules, “in light of the ongoing entrenched and polarised views of stakeholders on safe harbour reform”. It added: “Submissions to the committee demonstrate that there is strong support from a wide variety of stakeholders to extend the scheme, at least, to these sectors.” The committee held consultations in mid2017 and received responses from more than 60 stakeholders, including Google, Twitter, Facebook, and the UK Intellectual Property Office.
The Australian Greens filed a dissenting report, recommending the implementation of a definition of “service provider as a provider of transmission, routing or connections for digital online communications without modification of their content between or among points specified by the user of material of the user’s choosing”.
Proposals for a fair use and safe harbour system that surpass the country’s current fair dealing laws were initially met with criticism when they were proposed by the commission in December 2016. In response, the government said that, during the department’s consultations, stakeholders agreed to only extend the scheme to educational, cultural and disability sectors was an appropriate reform.
This would, in essence, be a full extension of the safe harbour scheme to all carriage and service providers. “The bill provides some momentum to a long-standing and contentious issue, which The government said that this extension was has seen no movement, despite numerous highly contested. reviews over the last 10 years.” This view was “made clear in the 2017 public consultation process on safe harbour conducted by the Department of Communications and the Arts, and was reflected in the submissions to the committee”, according to the government.
It said: “The government’s intention by progressing this bill is to ensure those sectors that are recognised as providing highly beneficial community services to the Australian community are afforded protection sooner rather than later.” Conference Special
3
Contents
Alibaba Update
UDRP Decisions
Alibaba’s intellectual property enforcement Nike, Audi, Ladbrokes Coral and Ikea have efforts saw “significant results in 2017” all appeared in UDRP disputes recently p6 p12
www.ipprotheinternet.com www.ippropatents.com
Ireland Insight
World Cup
Simon Gray, past president of the Irish APTMA, discusses post-Brexit Ireland p14
Ben Wodecki discusses upcoming challenges when it comes to 2018’s World Cup p16
Equality Outlook
China Update
Bethan Hopewell explains what still needs to be done when it comes to equality in IP p20
RWS’s Justin Simpson outlines why if the rest of the world can’t beat China, it should join it p22
@IPProTI @IPProPatents Acting Editor: Becky Butcher beckybutcher@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6018 Senior Reporter: Barney Dixon barneydixon@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6026 Junior Reporter: Ben Wodecki benwodecki@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6017 Designer: James Hickman jameshickman@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6021 Contributors: Ned Holmes and Jenna Lomax Marketing and Sales Support: Paige Tapson paigetapson@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6020 IP Portfolio Manager: Serena Franklin serenafranklin@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6025
Technology Insight
Case Report
Doris Spielthenner discusses the changing landscape of taxi services with autonomy p24
Jenni Rutter and Charlotte Henley analyse a recent case involving Red Bull p28
Blockchain Analysis
Industry Events
Vicki Strachan outlines the ways blockchain technology could revolutionise IP landscape p30
Pick up your copy of IPPro at these upcoming industry events p34
Account Manager: Brenda Shanahan brenda@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6024 Publisher: Justin Lawson justinlawson@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)203 750 6028 Office Manager: Chelsea Bowles accounts@blackknightmedialtd.com Published by Black Knight Media Ltd Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved
4
IPPro
J. Varbanov & Partners
European and Bulgarian Patent & Trademark Attorneys
One of the oldest and leading IP companies in Bulgaria Professional, cost effective services and quality advices
Areas of practice: *IP Protection *IP Enforcement *Anti-counterfeiting *Litigations *Domain name registrations *IP watches
PO Box 1152, BG-1000 Sofia, Bulgaria South Park Complex, bl.1A, 2nd fl., BG-1421, Sofia, Bulgaria Tel.: (+359 2) 986 51 25, Fax: (+359 2) 980 32 47, e-mail: jvp@jvpatents.com
www.jvpatents.com
News Round-Up Alibaba IP enforcement efforts saw ‘significant results in 2017’
Speaking at the summit, Andrew Love, head of brand security and global investigations at Specialized Bicycles, said that his Alibaba’s intellectual property enforcement company’s partnership with Alibaba had efforts saw “significant results in 2017”, seen significant strengthening since it began according to the ecommerce platform. eight years ago. He explained: “Alibaba really goes above and beyond in our collaboration in In its 2017 annual report on IP rights offline investigations.” protection, the company pointed to its increased response times to takedown “We can bring what we know and Alibaba can requests, and an increased number of bring what they know through big data, and brands and rights holders on its IP Protection that’s very powerful. Criminals are not safe Platform as evidence of its growing IP on Alibaba.” enforcement offering. He added: “There’s a triangle: government, The company also saw growth in membership brands, and Alibaba. If three points of that of its Alibaba Anti-Counterfeiting Association. triangle work together, we can win.” Speaking at the Alibaba IP Rights Protection Summit in Seattle, the ecommerce platform said it had seen a 68 percent reduction in processing time of takedown requests in 2017, compared to 2016. It added that the number of notice and takedown requests submitted by rights holders had declined 42 percent year-over-year, even though registered accounts on ALibaba’s IP Protection Platform rose by 17 percent. Some 97 percent of all proactive takedowns were made before a single sale occured. Alibaba Group chief platform governance officer, Jessie Zheng, commented: “Today, we are pleased to share the significant progress we made over the past year, but more importantly, we want to work with our stakeholders and continue to improve our IP rights protection work and achieve more breakthroughs in 2018. Mutual trust and collaboration are keys to the success of IP protection. As an industry leader, Alibaba wants to collaborate with all stakeholders—whether they’re rights holders, agencies, trade associations, law enforcement—to keep leading the best practice in IP protection,” she said.
Plain cigarette packaging leading to increase in counterfeits, says TMA Plain packaging on cigarettes has led to an increase in consumer purchasing of fake cigarettes in the UK, according to the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA). The TMA’s anti-illicit trade polls found that 24 percent of smokers said they were aware of illicit tobacco in their local area, a 20 percent increase on last year’s findings. Some 53 percent of smokers agreed that rising prices made them more likely to buy untaxed tobacco. More than 30 percent of smokers agreed that minimum pack sizes made them more likely to buy untaxed tobacco, and 44 percent of smokers agreed that they have no objections to buying untaxed tobacco even when it is from an illegal source. The TMA said that the UK government was warned this would happen by the tobacco industry, law enforcement and intellectual property experts. Giles Roca, director general of the TMA, said: “The recent evidence shows that plain packaging appears to be failing in the UK like everywhere it has been introduced.”
Alibaba’s IP Rights Protection Summit saw more than 230 participants, including brand owners, IP rights experts, industry associations, “It appears not to be delivering the health outcomes it was claimed it would bring while government agencies and law enforcement. 6
IPPro
at the same time is proving to be a boon to the black market by encouraging smokers to buy from illicit sources.” He added: “The government should recognise that plain packaging is failing and undertake a full and immediate review of this policy.”
American freedom ‘tied’ to IP system American freedom is “tied to an effective intellectual property system”, according to US Congressman Doug Collins, speaking at a briefing at the US Chamber of Commerce. Collins, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and on the subcommittee for the Courts, IP and the Internet, said that IP is “part of the fabric of the nation”. The briefing, which was hosted by the Center for IP Understanding (CIPU) and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) on 8 May, covered innovation policy and IP in the US. Alongside Collins, was former vice president of IP business and strategy at Microsoft, Marshall Phelps who discussed how IP is used by the US the combat the threat to technology posed by international players. For example, Phelps discussed how in the 1980s, the US maintained a lead over Japan with the right combination of incentives. He drew comparisons to the current situation with China, where the “threat to IP and innovation” is becoming a reality. However, Phelps said that “too much policy and the wrong incentives can create bigger problems. Making patent certainty a higher priority should be the first priority. Putting IP properly on the balance sheet would help, too.” Bruce Berman, chairman and founder of CIPU, said that the briefing illustrated the confusion over the interpretation of US innovation and policy. He said: “It is unclear how policy must be modified in response to increased patent uncertainty and infringement, as well as from IP abuses that originate in China.”
The new standard in global IP business intelligence
Filing Analytics – the IP business development tool you can’t afford to be without. Grow your business and increase revenue Obtain new clients and improve client retention Get the leading edge over your competitors
Developed and managed by
Download your free law firm report at A member of the IPH group
ASX:IPH
filinganalytics.io
News Round-Up UK responds to trade secrets directive The government said that it was necessary The UK Government has delivered a response to its consultation on the EU trade secrets directive and its implementation into UK law. The directive harmonises the definition of trade secrets across EU member states, as well as the civil means through which victims of trade secret misappropriation can seek protection.
to implement articles 12 and 13(1) of the directive to aid transparency and consistency and ensure compliance.
The government added that the final version of the regulations would be made public when they are laid before the UK Parliament.
Seller of illegal TV devices sentenced for a second time
The consultation saw a variety of respondents, including the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Association, the Licensing Executives Society and UK High Court judge, Justice Arnold.
A seller of illegal TV devices has been sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for re-offending after being prosecuted and sentenced for the same crime in 2016.
According to the government’s response, it will revise the definitions of trade secrets “so that they are more aligned to the wording of the directive”. However, the government said it would not change the definition of “court” as the Patents Court is part of the High Court.
The man appeared at Norwich Crown Court on 4 May after pleading guilty to selling unauthorised decoders, after violating the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. He had previously received a 12-month sentence suspended for two years at the Norwich Crown
Court on 28 October 2016 after admitting to selling unauthorised decoders adapted to enable access to encrypted transmissions between December 2013 and April 2016. In early 2017, investigators from The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) discovered that the offender was breaching the terms of his sentence. A second investigation was launched by FACT and Norfolk Police on 8 August last year. The man was re-arrested at his home in Norwich where he had installed multiple satellite dishes in his garden. He was summoned to appear on 14 February and pleaded guilty on 28 March. In sentencing the offender, the judge, HHJ Moore commented: “The gambling industry requires tight regulation, and legitimate organisations who subscribe to Sports
+33 (0) 1 84 17 45 32 contact@ipzen.com www.ipzen.com
Case Management Manage files online Track activities Attach documents Share Information
Trademark Management
Domain Name Management Manage your domain names online Track deadlines Sort domain names by category Check availability online
Watch Services
Access your portfolios online
Trademarks
Automatically calculate deadlines
Domain names
Integrate trademark data easily
Social media
Deadline Tracking View all deadlines in a snap Select people and delegate task
Integrated Invoicing Generate invoices directly from your files Consolidate files into a invoice Track payments
YOUR IP SOFTWARE SOLUTION IN THE CLOUD
8
IPPro
News Round-Up Information Services (SIS) pay taxes and contribute to the Levy—your actions undermine the whole system.” Kieron Sharp, CEO of FACT, said: “This result is an excellent example of how serious an issue illegal streaming is. Whether it’s a restream on social media, a piracy site, or using a device, box or stick connected to your TV, avoiding the official provider to access content is illegal.” “FACT is leading the way in combating digital piracy and working with the betting industry to crack down on these types of offences and to hold those behind them accountable for their actions.” Kevin Smith, general counsel of SIS, said: “We are very pleased that Marston has once again been brought to justice and that a custodial sentence has been imposed. We are particularly gratified that the court recognised
that [the offender’s] actions undermined the entire system of how betting is licensed and racing is funded, and that the sentence highlights the fact that the courts are prepared to treat copyright infringement as theft.” “SIS has an obligation to its customers and rights holders alike to ensure that the value of content remains undiluted, and will not hesitate to prosecute offenders in the future.”
According to the complaint, 23andMe’s patent is an improvement on previous ways of determining relative relationships. 23andMe accused Ancestry of selling services to identify relatives who share parts of a user’s DNA in its AncestryDNA kits. It said that when Ancestry performs these services to identify relatives, “they infringe [the patent] literally or under the doctrine of equivalents”.
Ancestry.com sued over DNA search patent
23andMe is also accusing Ancestry of misleading advertising with its “misrepresentation” that its DNA test Ancestry.com has been sued over the alleged provides “five times more regions than other infringement of a patent relating to DNA testing. DNA tests” and “five times more detail than other DNA tests”. 23andMe filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Northern District of California 23andMe is demanding an injunction on 11 May, accusing Ancestry of infringing its requiring Ancestry to stop infringing patent for finding relatives in a database, using the patent, as well as issue a statement recombinable DNA sequence information to correcting prior representations and determine relative relationships. comparisons of the technology.
Conference Special
9
News Round-Up On top of this, 23andMe has also taken issue with Ancestry’s trademark for its name. 23andMe said that the term Ancestry is “generic”, and is seeking a declaration that Ancestry has no protectable ownership interest in the trademark.
Premier League tackles illegal stream suppliers
The Premier League’s anti-piracy enforcement strategies have seen more than 200,000 streams removed and 450,000 clips stopped from being viewed during the 2017/18 season. Commenting on the settlement, Kevin Plumb, director of legal services at the Premier League, said: “This large settlement is further evidence that the law will catch up with companies and individuals that think they can defraud rights owners and breach copyright.”
Ace IPTV, an illegal Premier League stream provider, has been forced to liquidate after agreeing to pay £600,000 to the League for a breach of copyright. The owners of Ace “As a result of this payment the company is IPTV, Craig Driscoll and Ian Isaac, were being liquidated and customers are being left selling subscriptions to illegal Premier League out of pocket.” streams, allowing users to view football matches on a range of devices, including the He added: “Using these services is unlawful notorious Kodi-type boxes. and fans should be aware that when they do so they enter into agreements with illegal Ace IPTV has terminated all subscriptions businesses and risk being victims of fraud and all customers have been written to by the or identity theft by handing over personal company’s liquidators. data and financial details. Our investment
into cutting edge technology, combined with the ground-breaking High Court blocking order, means that it has never been harder for football pirates in the UK to survive.” In July 2017, the Premier League acquired a High Court order that requires UK ISPs to liveblock illegal streams of its matches. Plumb concluded: “Quite apart from the huge disruption we are able to cause their services, settlements like this one, and the lengthy custodial sentences that we have also seen this season, highlight just how risky an environment it now is for pirates.” Ace voluntarily disclosed the personal details of their customers, which the Premier League will now review in compliance with data protection legislation. Further investigations will be conducted, and action is taken where appropriate.
Excellent service at competitive prices for all your IP requirements in Iceland IP Legal Expertise, Intellectual Property Attorneys at Law, European Patent Attorneys
mail@patice.com www.patice.com 10
IPPro
L EGACY
IP Chambers
Experienced ARIPO and Zimbawe IP Experts Address:
No. 1 Wegot Court, Third Street/ H. Chitepo Ave, Harare, Zimbabwe
Phone:
+263 775 053 007
email:
henripasi@gmail.com
UDRP Decisions
Whose Domain Name Is It Anyway? Nike, Audi, Ladbrokes Coral and Ikea have all appeared at the World Intellectual Property Organisation Arbitration and Mediation Centre and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Forum in recent weeks Bookmaker Ladbrokes Coral has recovered a domain in a UDRP dispute at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Centre. Ladbrokes Coral alleged that ladbrokescoralltd.com was registered in bad faith as the original registrant of the domain, Scott Rose, was using Ladbrokes Coral’s trademarks for financial gain. Rose was looking to create a website that ties in with a campaign against the company. He responded before the proceedings by saying: “I wish to seek no further involvement with this dispute and I am more than happy for you to transfer over the rights of the domain in question.” Sole panellist Steven Maier ruled that the disputed domain should be transferred to Ladbrokes Coral as the domain was registered in bad faith. Maier said: “The addition of the term ‘ltd’ is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademarks in question and the panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.” Ikea has recovered a domain in a UDRP dispute at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. The Swedish furniture giant claimed ownership of ikeaipteam.nl, which was allegedly registered to confuse consumers. Sole panellist Willem Hoorneman agreed that the domain was confusingly similar, finding that “the domain name incorporates the [Ikea] trademark in its entirety [and] the domain name differs from the trademarks only in that the term ‘Ikea’ is followed by the descriptive term ‘ipteam’. The addition of such a descriptive term does not 12
IPPro
eliminate the confusing similarity with the trademarks.” Hoorneman concluded that the domain should be transferred to Ikea. Nike has won the rights to 20 domains in a UDRP dispute at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. The sports clothing brand alleged that domain names like nikeairmax97.com, shopsnikeukoutlet.com and nike-trademark.com are identical to many of its registered trademarks. Sole panellist Wilson Pinheiro Jabur ruled that the infringing domain name be transferred to Nike, as the original registrant of the domain, Gueijuan Xu, had registered and used it in bad faith. Jabur said: “The complainant’s mark is one of the most valuable trademarks in the world, and the respondent reproduced the complainant’s well-known logo and products in some of the webpages to which internet users are redirected.” Audi has claimed a domain name in a UDRP dispute at the Alternative Dispute Resolution Forum. Audi recovered audiiuse.com, a domain that it said was registered to cause confusion by directing users to Volvo’s website, a direct competitor of Audi. Sole panellist Rodrigo Azevedo ruled in favour of Audi, stating that the domain was registered “to be linked to Volvo Cars, [the] complainant’s direct competitor, and is currently being used to host advertisement that targets Audi consumers.” Azevedo also found that the original registrant had no rights to use the domain as “the complainant has not licensed or authorised the usage of its trademarks to the respondent, and it does not appear from the present record that the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name”. Azevedo ordered the domain name to be transferred to Audi.
The land of saints and scholars Simon Gray, partner at Tomkins IP and past president of the Irish Association of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, discusses Ireland’s place post-Brexit
Ben Wodecki reports
will probably have to have a separate company set up in Ireland and they will have to have an actual physical presence in Ireland.
How will Irish intellectual property suffer under Brexit?
Unless firms are willing to do that, it will not be an easy move.
The main impact for Ireland is the potential for UK firms moving into this jurisdiction. We’ve already seen some firms set up in the west of Ireland, others are setting up practices in Dublin.
For the bigger firms, there’s always that option, but for the smaller firms, the expense and the cost of moving to Ireland could be prohibitive for them in the UK.
There will be an increase in participation in the Irish market by firms outside of Ireland and that may be a problem. This will have limited impact on patents, patents will continue on as before, but in the UK trademarks and designs will be impacted. Any EU trademark or design registered will no longer be effective in the UK because it will no longer be a part of the EU system. Anyone who wants to register a trademark or a design in both the EU and UK are now going to have to register it separately in both jurisdictions.
We haven’t seen many major inroads into Ireland from UK firms, but with Brexit on the horizon, even with its transitional period, I think you may see more people looking to Ireland.
Alongside this is the issue of rights of representation in the EU for UK qualified trademark attorneys. Do you expect Ireland will become a haven for UK law firms post-Brexit? We have seen some movement, but so far it is not the avalanche that people were expecting. The issue is that firms don’t have to be in Ireland, they can be in any EU country. So we have seen the firms set up in Amsterdam, Paris and Munich. It is a big commitment to set up an office in a different jurisdiction. In Ireland, for example, you’ve got to have a proper presence, it’s not just brass plate on the door, firms 14
IPPro
In the same vein, have we seen an increase in UK residents sitting Irish trademark exams? We saw an increase in 2017—14 UK attorneys sat the exam, there is only one exam now and we understand only seven passed. The Irish trademark exam was only held on 24 April and the Irish Patent Office does not release the statistics, but I do expect to see an increase. The only issue is the Irish trademark system, the actual requirements to be on the Irish trademark register are slightly onerous in the sense that apart from sitting the exam, you must be an European Economic Area (EEA) citizen, and after Brexit, UK nationals are unlikely to be. Also, you must have an effective business presence established in an EEA country. Come Brexit, when the UK has fully left the EU, the Irish Patent Office is considering writing out a renewal of an entry on the Irish Trade
Ireland Insight
Mark Agents register for attorneys, asking them to prove that they fit the criteria of the Irish Trademark Act for being a trademark agent. If you’re not an EEA national, and/or you don’t have an EEA business or premises then you are unlikely to be able to practice and unlikely to be able to remain on the Irish register. Once you’ve been removed from the Irish register, you will not meet the criteria to remain on the EUIPO Attorney register. While there are a lot of British people doing the exam, it is not a guarantee that they’ll be able to stay on it, if they don’t meet these criteria once Brexit formally happens. Why would Brexit make Ireland more attractive to foreign direct investment? What sort of changes do you see? Ireland’s biggest direct investment comes from the US. We have more foreign direct investments from the US than France and Germany combined. For many English speaking countries, including those in the US, the UK is the best option because they want English speaking representation. It also has a similar common law system, whereas the rest of Europe has a civil law system. Ireland is attractive because we’re English speaking. We have the same historical common law system, and that is what I think will be attractive. They’ll be dealing with a similar culture and language as with what they were dealing with in the UK. There is provision in Ireland on the patent side for a knowledge development box that allows you to undertake research and claim tax back, we have a very low tax rate for commercial activity/businesses,
one of the lowest in Europe, which has always been attractive for foreign direct investment. How might the Irish border issues affect counterfeit enforcement? The border is an issue that could go both ways. At the moment, there is no border there. If both the UK and Irish governments continue this chanting that there should be an open border, you could see Ireland used as a conduit to get counterfeit or black market goods into Northern Ireland and mainland UK. It is a porous border. There are more than 700 individual spots where you can walk across. You can walk across a river and get to Northern Ireland. What are the biggest issues for IP attorneys? It’s the uncertainty still. IP is only one minor element in the overall negotiations in the EU, but it’s the uncertainty in the IP profession, people really don’t know what to do or what not to do. And even though the UK government has set out recommendations about the transfer of EU trademark and designs into UK national ones, there is no certainty there, there is also no certainty about representation. It has dragged on a very long time and I think it is going to continue. The uncertainty is not good for some businesses because some are holding back on progressing portfolios, new products and new developments until they know what the markets will be and what the impact Brexit will have on that market. IPPro Conference Special
15
World Cup
Lifting the counterfeit cup This year’s World Cup is taking place in Russia, and with the tournament comes criminals peddling counterfeits of every kind. This is one aspect of the beautiful game that needs a counter attack Ben Wodecki reports Since its inception, FIFA’s World Cup has brought some memorable moments: the ‘Hand of God’, that Zidane headbutt, and the battle of Nuremberg. But this year it’s the memorabilia, rather than the memories, causing concern all over the globe. The tournament is an ideal target for illegal stream suppliers, ticket touts, and counterfeiters. Jumpers, hats and sticker books are just some of the products produced by opportunistic counterfeiters. According to Statista, FIFA invests over $1.9 billion into each tournament, and earns $204.4 million from licensing rights alone, making it a lucrative business opportunity for counterfeiters looking to make a quick buck. FIFA’s all time World Cup records show that the last tournament saw an average crowd of 52,918 attendees. The next tournament will see stadiums like the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow and St. Petersburg’s Krestovsky Stadium, which can hold up to 81,000 and 68,000 viewers, respectively. With that size and scope, FIFA must be ready to protect everything from the tournament balls to the tournament mascot. Conference Special
17
World Cup But are FIFA doing enough to protect their brand, or perhaps being too heavy-handed when it comes to enforcement? There’s only one way to beat them, get round the back! Carol Levin, communications manager at the Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG), says that the World Cup can be a challenging affair, because there is an enormous association with merchandise. Full members of the ACG include Sky, Tottenham Hotspur, Puma, adidas and Nike. Levin contacted some of ACG’s members for their views on counterfeiting in relation to the World Cup, who also expressed concern at a potential increase in counterfeiting during the World Cup. One of the brands points out that due to clubs and international teams launching new kits, there is “an increase in counterfeit merchandise and seizure activity during this period”. Another brand added: “The World Cup brings with it a number of strict rules and regulations, which alongside the legislative IP requirements places an additional burden on the public sector agencies responsible for enforcing IP infringements.” One such similar agency is the UK Trading Standards. Handley Brustad, who is the CTSI lead officer of IP in its Cardiff branch, points out that counterfeiting does increase in a World Cup year, “particularly for the well supported teams like Brazil, Argentina and England”. “There is also an increase in counterfeiting of the official Adidas match ball, which this year is called the ‘Telstar’.” Brustad highlights that his jurisdiction, Cardiff, has “seven major venues within a two mile radius of the city centre” and has hosted many international sports and music events. He says that all of these events are problematic, especially when “the difficulties faced by a local authority on reduced staff and budgets and trying to protect IP rights at major events”. Anna Guix, in house counsel at FC Barcelona, said at a recent conference that counterfeiters are even copying the labelling of club shirts, so that brands are having to “develop specific labels for security reasons”. She also noted that counterfeiters are using smaller shipments to hide their products, as well as distributing products without the branding attached, only to add it on at a later date. Guix also made reference to large events in the football world, similar to the World Cup, such as Copa Del Rey (Spanish Cup), Champions League, El Clasicos as well as Summer Tours to places like the US and China. 18
IPPro
She said that FC Barcelona tries to “increase online searches during these periods and have police raids around the stadiums to try and stop the sales of counterfeiters”. Kelly Tillery, partner at Pepper Hamilton, highlights that this year’s World Cup host, Russia, has laws that “provide protection of trademarks through enforcement through legal action”. “Standard remedies including injunctive relief, monetary damages and seizure.” He adds that: “Preliminary injunctive relief is also available, however, it is rarely granted.” He says that the previous World Cup host, Brazil, actually had to change its laws for the World Cup as, “in most cases, authorities are very interested in supporting enforcement efforts”. According to Alison Statham, director general of the ACG, counterfeiting at large events, such as the World Cup, can lead to even bigger problems. For example, vast profits made from convincing World Cup-branded products “are increasingly funding organised crime and terrorism”, according to Statham. Statham added that the ACG is lobbying governments and working with enforcement agencies “to better protect consumers from this malicious crime”. She concluded by urging consumers to think carefully about the goods they buy online be it at home or abroad “because counterfeit goods are often of poorer quality, can be unsafe and more worryingly, may even be dangerous”. According to a FIFA Spokesperson, for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the organisation will be working together with customs authorities across the world to “use existing structures and know-how in the joint battle against counterfeit products”. The spokesperson added that the preparation for the 2018 tournament was “not only on developing the infrastructure of the stadiums, transportation and the logistics but also on the creation of a unique 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia brand”. This brand itself includes the official emblem, official look programme, mascot, slogan, and more. The spokesman concluded: “From the early days of the event preparations through to the final dramatic moments when the trophy is presented to the winning team, the whole event needs a strong brand that captures the essence of the event and the host country, whilst forging strong emotional links between the World Cup and fans all over the world.” IPPro
Momentum for change As the world refocuses on equality in the workplace, innovation industries are taking notice. Bethan Hopewell of Powell Gilbert explains what still needs to be done to secure change in IP Barney Dixon reports How well represented are women in innovation industries in the UK? Whilst there has been gradual progress over the decades, women remain underrepresented in the UK’s innovation industries. The portion of female workers in innovation industries is rising, but under-representation is borne out by the fact that just 23 percent of those working in core science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) occupations are women. There are also large disparities between different innovation industries. For example, whilst 42 percent of science professionals are women, this compares with 17 percent of ICT professionals and 11 percent of engineering professionals. A concerted effort is therefore needed in order to secure gender parity among these professions. The figures for women working in medicine and biochemistry are encouraging but in other fields such as IT and engineering the under-representation of women is a cause for concern. Is this reflected in intellectual property law? What sort of representation do we see in areas that service the innovation industry? Innovative companies rely on patents to protect inventions so statistics on patents provide a good indication of how 20
IPPro
well represented women are in the innovation industry. In the UK, only 7 percent of patents are filed by women, which is a troubling statistic. Countries such as France, Russia and South Korea all have a higher proportion of patent filings made by women. Although there is a gender diversity issue in IP law, this also applies to the legal sector more generally. According to the UK Solicitors Regulation Authority, women make up just 33 percent of partners in small or medium-sized law firms and 27 percent for larger firms. Which industries see the most contributions from women in terms of inventions? Analysis of UK patent applications from WIPO shows that biotechnology inventions have the highest proportion of female inventors with 25.5 percent, followed by pharmaceutical inventions at 24.4 percent, and organic chemistry inventions at 23.4 percent. Women therefore contribute the most to biochemistry and life sciences industries, reflecting the higher proportions of female workers in those sectors. Inventions in mechanical engineering fields such as mechanical elements, thermal processes and apparatus, and machine tools have the lowest proportions of female inventors.
Equality Outlook
Why is the number of women filing patents in the UK so low? Are there any barriers for women going into innovation industries? Whilst perceptions continue to improve as more female role models emerge, the main barriers to women going into innovation industries remain cultural and societal. STEM fields such as engineering have traditionally been viewed as male-dominated and more work needs to be done to encourage women to pursue careers in sectors that produce innovation. In particular, we need to focus on education and inspire belief from an early age that girls and young women are capable of excelling in STEM subjects. With only 35 percent of girls studying maths, physics or a technical qualification at the age of 16 compared with 94 percent of boys, there is clearly a deficiency in the current system and there needs to be a concerted effort to reverse this trend.
The momentum for change is building and this presents a great opportunity to promote gender equality in all sectors, especially those in which the under-representation of women is particularly acute. Organisations, whether they are in innovation sectors or in law, should take the initiative and make sure they are set up to attract and retain female talent. Moreover, they should get involved in campaigns such as WISE to promote gender parity in STEM industries and proactively put in place policies, such as mentoring, to help young women to thrive and become the high achievers and inventors of tomorrow. There are some great success stories from history and the present of inspiring female inventors and by encouraging women to work in occupations that produce innovation, we will be creating a solid foundation for a fairer and more inventive society. IPPro
With a renewed focus on equality in both the workplace and society-at-large, how can innovation industries push to encourage equality and increase contributions from women? The last twelve months have brought to the fore the inequalities faced by women in the workplace and in society more generally.
Bethan Hopewell Partner Powell Gilbert
If we are able to tackle the problem in schools and encourage girls to study STEM subjects, more young women will choose to study STEM subjects at university and go into the STEM industries that produce innovation. Inspiring young women to take up STEM subjects will be a significant step towards tackling the under-representation of female inventors and the low number of patents filed by women.
Conference Special
21
Reading between the lines Justin Simpson of RWS explains recent filing trends in China and outlines why, if the rest of the world can’t beat China, it should follow its lead Fluctuations in market trends and domestic policies can cause dramatic shifts in the intellectual property landscape year after year, making it difficult to track considerations beyond one’s own borders. Analysing the context of relevant data and identifying key marketplace indicators, such as filing trends, can help guide decisions of where to focus attention and resources. Markets indicating decline or even stability should not be ignored, but markets indicating consistent growth deserve a second look with respect to how they factor into long-term IP strategy. Consider the example of China, which has posted stable growth for the past 10 years. In 2017, China surpassed Japan as the number two patent cooperation treaty (PCT) filer according to recent data published by the World IP Organization (WIPO). With 48,882 PCT applications filed, China now trails only the US, which filed 56,624 applications in 2017. In the last decade, China has never posted PCT application totals less than 13 percent over the prior year, and its 2017 numbers reflect a nearly 700 percent increase over its 2008 filings. The greatest changes in percentage filed over prior year during that 10-year stretch occurred in 2010 and 2016, in which China posted 56 percentage—12,301 (2010) over 7,900 (2009)—and 44 percent increases—43,091(2016) over 29,838 (2015). 22
IPPro
In part, China has modelled its strategy after another one of the most successful patent-filing nations in the world—Japan. When two Japanese companies have a patent fight they do not get into the minutiae of the breadth of the claims of patents. Instead, they say, for example, you have 845 granted patents, we have 950 granted patents, therefore you need to pay us royalties on the difference. In Japan, with patent portfolios, size does matter and the company with the biggest portfolio wins. China’s aim to become the world’s largest patent filer is based not just upon the inherent status of such a claim, but upon the associated commercial bargaining power it brings. Looking at the data, it is clear that 2010 was a turning point for China in terms of filing. Both 2010 and 2016 were outliers for growth in filings relative to the other years since 2008. You may remember that the third revision of China’s Patent Law, also known as China’s National Intellectual Property Strategy, was released in June 2008, adopted in December 2008, and took effect in October 2009. The third revision saw the change from domestic (relative) disclosure to international (absolute) disclosure, the cutting back of avenues for “patent hijacking” and the encouragement of Chinese residents to file abroad. As reflected in the sudden growth of PCT filings during the 2008-2010 timeframe, the newly placed importance on international awareness was not lost on China’s IP holders. Growth in recent years has been unwisely written off by some outsiders as artificial; this is a dangerous assumption to rely upon given the observed data trends.
China Update
Understanding the system While parts of China’s reformed approach to patent law are borrowed from Japan, others, such as the application process, more closely mirror that of the European model. To start an application in China you can either file directly via a Paris Convention filing within your 12-month priority period or a PCT application entering China at the 30-month date (with a 2-month grace period for translations). Within three years of the priority date, you must request examination, with options for voluntary amendments and then office actions are issued until grant or rejection. You have opportunities at two points in the above process to amend your patent and you should carefully consider using both of them given the fair basis rules, which closely align with European patent law and differ quite greatly from the US process. The first opportunity comes when you request examination and the second lasts three months from notice that substantive examination has begun. It is imperative that you use these opportunities to your advantage and carefully review whether you need to amend or not; doing so after the fact will be extremely difficult. You will also want to consider translations and the problems they can present. Before you even start the filing process, you will want to ensure that any relevant foreign-language prior art is accurately translated, including translations for foreign competitor patent claims. While machine translations can serve as a functional starting point, a poor translation can severely hinder the timeliness of your filing. Differences between languages are often technically complex and errors quickly compound, given most patents are already technically complex in subject matter. For example China does not use articles such as ‘a’ or ‘the’, and no distinction is made between singular and plural nouns. Word for word translations between English and Chinese can result in a translation that does not read properly, and in the other direction, too much subjectivity can stray from the intent of the source document. A literal approach of conveying meaning without broadening the scope
of patent, striking a balance between the obvious challenges, is preferred. Improper translations are one of the most common barriers to timely securing IP rights outside of your native country.
Looking forward With the rapid pace at which Chinese patent applications are being filed, how do the rest of us compete? One approach is filing a very narrow sets of claims. This results not only in faster prosecution and grant, but also allows three or four applications to be filed for an invention that could quite comfortably sit in one broad set of claims. This also builds out your patent portfolio in size, impressing both investors and competitors alike. A helpful question to ask might be: would the CEO of your competitor be more impressed that you held 50 granted patents or five very broad patents? While an IP practitioner who toiled for many hours crafting a perfect claims set might find it crude, the commercial reality is that 10 narrow patents are valued more highly than two very broad patents. Or perhaps you should consider a strategy used by Kia Silverbrook, one of the most prolific inventors of all time. According to former inhouse counsel, one such strategy utilised by Silverbrook was to file 300-page priority documents covering an array of inventions, and then comb through that for specific inventions, filing as many divisional applications as possible. Once again, the commercial realities of the marketplace simply do not wait for creativity and inspiration. Find a strategy that works and use it. For the rest of the world watching China’s IP acceleration this is the takeaway: we cannot beat them, so we might as well join them. Even more, you need to understand both what they are doing and how to operate within their system. The numbers do not lie—if you have not been paying attention to what China is doing, you should be, because it is working for them, and it can work for you too. IPPro
Justin Simpson RWS
The relevancy of PCT application filings trends should not be understated. Simply looking at the raw output of a country’s IP authority in terms of domestic IP filings paints an incomplete picture of that country’s participation on the international stage and strong IP is rarely confined to the country from which it originated. While an application on its own is not necessarily an indicator of quality, it does demonstrate a high level of confidence in one’s IP, especially when considering cost and time commitments. China is set to become the number one filer of PCT applications in the next three years. For those outside of China, it is increasingly important that you secure your rights there, as the flow of interdependency between securing priority and developing business continues to grow in China’s direction. From a high-level overview, one should consider three key takeaways: understand the process, amend when you can and the importance of translation quality.
Conference Special
23
Taxi to the future Doris Spielthenner of Practice Insight discusses the changing landscape of taxi services with autonomy and flying cars Autonomous vehicles are not futuristic concepts anymore—they are here, and their readiness to be accessible to the public is increasing with each passing day. Along with the technology’s application in many areas, the most exciting and perhaps the most visible to the public is the application of autonomous vehicles in taxi and ride-sharing services.
24
IPPro
Already in H1 2018, Waymo received a green light to offer a fully autonomous taxi service in Arizona. Soon the general public will be able to get a first-hand experience of what it is like to ride in an autonomous vehicle. This will also be a completely new test for Waymo in terms of the market and consumer acceptance of the autonomous vehicles.
Technology Insight Waymo certainly won’t be the only company to offer autonomous rides to the public.
This technology is already quite mature and the only thing remaining is regulatory approvals based on testing data.
� Singapore-based NuTonomy received approval to begin testing its driverless taxis and also have the funding from Grab and Ford to assist their development
Companies working heavily in this area include:
� Uber have been testing their self-driving cars for the last few years
�
Volocopter Taxi have designed a vertical taking-off and landing helicopter taxi that can take passengers between fixed points
� Lyft have announced their intentions to introduce autonomous ride services in partnership with Magna, an automotive component provider
� Uber have recently revealed their ‘Skyport’ proposals for their ‘UberAir’ programme. It will have pilots in its first stage but it is then planned to be made autonomous going further
� Two Chinese companies founded by former Baidu executives, Pony.ai and JingChi, have announced that they are road testing their autonomous vehicles
� Ehang, a Chinese drone manufacturer have already tested their passenger-carrying quadrocopter Ehang 184, receiving good feedback from the tech community
� The Chinese taxi service giant DiDi Chuxing have commenced testing autonomous vehicles in Shanghai
Likewise with the on-road autonomous industry, traditional transport corporations have started their foray into this area.
� Navya, a French autonomous taxi company, announced their Autonom taxi, which is said to be production ready, along with an autonomous shuttle offering more seats compared to the traditional six-seater taxi
Airbus tested their ‘Vahana’, an electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
These new initiatives are not just happening with emerging companies, the ‘traditional’ major automotive companies are also joining in on the action. Nissan have announced a testing phase for their Easy Ride robotic taxi service that they have developed in partnership with DeNa in Japan. General Motors are aiming for 2019 as the year in which they will start offering their autonomous Chevy Bolt models as a ridesharing service. Bosch and Daimler, as a part of their autonomous car development partnership will be testing robotic taxis on public roads in the coming months. Voyage, a new autonomous taxi startup is backed by Jaguar Land Rover’s venture capital arm InMotion Ventures with $3 million investment. The technology brings with itself the promise of being low cost in the long term, as the expenditure of driver’s wages will be taken out of the equation. This also raises the problem of large-scale unemployment of skilled drivers, when the technology starts to infiltrate the ride-sharing market. The economics of the situation (cheaper rides) would lure all taxi services to have autonomous cars, resulting in the possibility that the entire ride-sharing market may become driverless in a short span of time. It’s not just autonomous road vehicles that are emerging on the market. There are several companies working on flying autonomous taxis.
They have also developed an E-Fan X prototype in partnership with Rolls Royce and Siemens. Boeing is also backing the development of a small electric jet by Zunum Aero. Although this may very well be outside of the definition of taxi services, it can be used as chartered private transport for consumers. Flying taxis may bring with them the promise of a faster commute and lower road congestion, but it also brings the problems of public acceptance, noise levels, wind force, etc. However, the cost efficiencies of the technology will probably be the main determining factor in bringing the technology to the consumers. These new disruptions in the traditional transport sector are resulting in great opportunities for law firms and service providers to expand the client base with work with new players. At the same time, the rapid technology changes will result in the established transport manufacturers to work harder to stay relevant and retain their market share, meaning more work for law firms and service providers. Established players from the automotive and aerospace area already have a large number of patent filings and usually work with multiple law firms. Most of the non-traditional new players have very few patent filings and have usually only worked with one or two law firms. Conference Special
25
Technology Insight For example: � NuTonomy work with Fish & Richardson US for their Patent Cooperation Treaty filings �
Zunum Aero, the Boeing backed electric jet manufacturer work with Cooley LLP, DC
�
Lyft work with one law firm for their representation in the US, European Patent Office (EPO), China, and Canada
Also, interestingly, the US law firm shares a lot of cases with other law firms in Germany for other clients, but it has an exchange with this law firm for Uber filings. This suggests that the German law firm has a client-preferred status rather than a partner-preferred status in this relationship.
In Filing Analytics, we can see at a glance that Waymo’s filings show that they are represented only by two law firms in the US. For other jurisdictions, they use one or two law firms at the maximum.
Figure three: Case Exchange between DE Law Firm & Law Firm C for Uber Technologies. Source: Filing Analytics
Figure one: US Representation for Waymo LLC. Source: Filing Analytics
If we take a look at Uber, we can see that although they are now a multinational giant, they still retain a start-up approach to using only a select few law firms.
It is quite possible that these startups will increase their patent filings and then widen their representation options in the future. It’s also possible that if the start-up doesn’t already have a law firm representation in your jurisdiction, then perhaps you can grab the opportunity to be their representing law firm. The growth and pace of innovation in this field and the opportunities to work with many startups certainly makes it a clear case on why law firms should not overlook the ever-increasing business development opportunities in autonomous transport. To find out who is working with whom, or which emerging players may need your law firm services, visit http://filinganalytics.io Disclaimer: All this information is publicly available under register sources for different jurisdictions. These actual snippets have been identified using Filing Analytics which collects these information points from diverse sources and makes the data available and easily searchable while providing further analytics on the data.
For the EPO, Uber is represented by a German law firm, an Irish law firm, and three law firms from the UK. Delving deeper into the reciprocity between the law firm representing them for German and the law firm representing them in the US, we can see that the filings shared between them have been just for Uber in the last two years, and overall, they have collaborated for two filings for another company before. 26
IPPro
Doris Spielthenner General manager Practice Insight
Figure two: US Representation for Uber Technologies. Source: Filing Analytics
27
IPPro Patents
www.ippropatents.com
Red rag to a bull Jenni Rutter and Charlotte Henley of Kensington Swan analyse a recent case involving Red Bull’s trademarks and reputation A recent decision from the New Zealand Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks confirmed that a reputation associated with one type of core goods can be used to stop registration of a similar trademark for very different goods.
� Use of the Bullsone logo would be likely to deceive or confuse consumers (section 17(1)(a) Trade Marks Act 2002)
Bullsone applied to register the following device mark in New Zealand:
�
Red Bull opposed the application on two main grounds:
Bullsone logo is similar to the following logo marks that had been extensively used by Red Bull: and use of the Bullsone logo would be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade with Red Bull, and would be likely to prejudice the interests of Red Bull (section 25(1)(c)
Fig 1: Bullsone logo
Fig 2: Red Bull logo
The goods were motor vehicle related products in classes one, three, four, and five.
Red Bull’s evidence showed very significant use of its trademarks, including in New Zealand.
They included chemical additives, windscreen cleaning liquids, oils and lubricants, air freshening preparations and the like. Bullsone is a Korean company with no known presence in New Zealand.
This included not only activities directly relating to its energy drink products, but also substantial use of its marks in relation to motorsports and other events Red Bull sponsors.
28
IPPro
Case Report
Examples included the following:
Despite the disparate nature of Red Bull’s energy drink products and the automotive products of Bullsone, the Hearings Officer found: “Red Bull’s publicised and well known sponsorship of motor racing as a means of promoting its energy drinks will lead a substantial number of consumers who see the opposed mark on the applicant’s automotive (and other) goods to conclude that there is a connection in the course of trade between those gogo would be likely to prejudice Red Bull’s interests, based not only on the likelihood of confusion or deception, but also possible dilution of the strength and coherence of Red Bull’s well-known marks.”
The Hearings Officer accepted Red Bull’s argument that the Bullsone Logo is “strikingly similar” to the Red Bull marks. Crucially, on the s 17(1)(a) argument she found that “the evidence demonstrates that it is likely that a substantial number of consumers or potential consumers of the applicant’s car care products would make an association between motorsports and the Red Bull trademarks”, or would be caused to wonder whether the goods bearing the Bullsone Logo were produced or licensed by Red Bull. For the purposes of the s 25(1)(c) argument the Hearings Officer accepted that the Red Bull marks were “well-known” in New Zealand. This finding was based on Red Bull’s “significant evidence of its advertising and publicity of its marks through various media and the uptake by the public of that media”, as well as the high volume of sales of its products in New Zealand.
Charlotte Henley Partner Kensington Swan
Fig 3: Red Bull sponsorships
Jenni Rutter Partner Kensington Swan
Red Bull’s opposition succeeded and the decision was not appealed. IPPro
Conference Special
29
Blockchanging with the times Vicki Strachan of Wynne Jones outlines the ways blockchain technology could revolutionise the current intellectual property landscape and offer greater power to innovators globally Blockchain technology has the potential to transform the intellectual property industry and render accidental infringements obsolete, IP experts have claimed. This digital ledger technology, which has become the focus of worldwide attention, could change IP rights monetisation and enforcement as well as, potentially, empower a new generation of innovators. Until recently this innovative technology has been widely recognised as the digital platform behind cryptocurrencies, enabling millions of people to record and track transactions safely and securely. Its unique capabilities allow multiple parties to ensure all the information contained in a transaction is accurate, and once confirmed, it is safeguarded against alteration at a later date. In this sense it ensures that an accurate, verified, record of information is created and protected against unwarranted tampering. For this reason, many industries are exploring its potential, and the IP sector is no exception. Its core function of being decentralised and secure in handling transactions has clear benefits for those across the innovative and IP sectors, and the concept of such a distributed ledger functioning as a worldwide IP registry would clearly be attractive. However, looking beyond its basic role, blockchain technology has immeasurable potential in relation to monetising and enforcing IP ownership rights and could even serve to combat counterfeiting in the future. 30
IPPro
Proof of ownership IP infringement generally occurs when an invention, design, trademark or original artistic work protected by IP rights is commercially used or exploited without the consent of the owner. Unauthorised use of this type is often devastating for businesses and entrepreneurs that may have ploughed significant time, resources and funds into launching an original product, service or brand, only to see their commercial monopoly destroyed by the introduction of a similar, potentially inferior, copy. In cases such as this, the right owner (or exclusive licensee) may wish to assert their IP rights and highlight their proof of ownership, in a bid to prevent continued infringement, and further damage to their brand. However, in many cases, the infringing party may claim that they were unaware that the product or service was protected by intellectual property. At the moment, details of different registered IP rights are stored in various databases, and unregistered rights are not generally available to view at all. But the potential to use blockchain technology for the management of all IP rights, by recording them via a distributed ledger rather than the various traditional databases, could not only reduce accidental infringement, but also combat false claims of mistaken use. Many companies which infringe an IP owner’s rights claim that they were unaware of their existence. With the internet making it easier for original ideas to be used and manipulated on a global scale without
Blockchain Analysis
the owner’s knowledge, the lines can often become blurred when it comes to the existence of IP rights and their ownership. For that reason, unauthorised use of a registered, or unregistered IP right, could very well be accidental, as its existence and ownership gets lost through the many channels online and across industries available to track those rights. That said, it is also not unheard of for people who knowingly infringe an IP right to claim ignorance if they are caught. By creating a global, and conclusive IP registry using blockchain technology, which is an instantly and easily accessible, immutable record of both unregistered and registered IP rights, there is the potential, in the future, to prevent infringing parties from legitimately claiming so-called ‘innocent infringement’. This type of system could put IP right owners in a much better position to quickly tackle any unauthorised use before it has the potential to do any damage.”
Ownership of unregistered IP rights Unregistered IP rights, such as copyright and unregistered design right, have long been problematic in terms of proving conception, use and status, because, as their name suggests, there is currently no searchable register or other central record of them. Not only can this lead to, often innocent, infringement of these rights, it can also hamper any attempts by the owner to prove ownership in the event of a dispute.
However, blockchain technology could play an important role in helping to resolve this IP grey area. By uploading their original design or work to a blockchain, a time-stamped record is created that would give the owner a greater degree of tangible proof needed to prove ownership. Another potential use lies in the provision of a central record of events, detailing the life of a registered IP right, and enabling it to be tracked using this technology. The potential benefits might include easier IP auditing procedures and simplified due diligence processes for IP transactions. Blockchain-like repositories for unregistered rights are already being developed, and it will be interesting to see the extent to which they could provide a solution to the claiming and evidencing of ownership of unregistered IP rights.
Digital rights management In cases where an IP right owner’s market potential is largely intangible, they can lose out financially without a system for monitoring the use of their creation and obtaining payment for such use. Music and images are the perfect example of original work, which is readily available to be copied and used, but with no formal means of monitoring such use or securing appropriate license fees. Blockchain technology could, for example, be used to create a distributed ledger in which the author’s records are available on a secure worldwide platform. This would then act as a point of contact for those looking to use the copyrighted creation. Owners can then, in theory, be paid any associated licensing fees that they are entitled to for agreed usage. Conference Special
31
Blockchain Analysis This could pave the way for owners and users to communicate more openly to allow licensing fees and associated costs to be made more naturally, consequently eradicating the need for infringement.
their mark has been used and how frequently. In cases involving non-use revocation of a registered trade mark, recording details of a trade mark via this type of digital ledger, could prove to be vital evidence for ensuring a registered mark remains on the official register, and therefore continues to be protected against infringement or exploitation.
Indeed, KodakONE image rights management platform, launched by Kodak and WENN Digital earlier this year, together with its own cryptocurrency, aims to do just that and enable photographers and agencies to take greater control in image rights management.
Tackling counterfeits
Owners of original work often lose out financially, as those seeking to use it may be unaware that IP rights exist, let alone how to obtain permission to use the work and pay any associated royalties.
Thanks to the ability of blockchain technology to exist as a certificate of authenticity for an original work, it could be used to streamline the process of identifying counterfeit products.
Equally, if there is no easily accessible record of when the work was created and by whom, the likelihood of inadvertent infringement is significant.
One of the unique elements that has caused blockchain technology to gain worldwide interest and success, is its ability to prevent unauthorised access to, or alteration of, any records.
Blockchain technology could, for example, be used to create an open IP registry to give right owners greater control. And with the introduction of smart contracts and cryptocurrency payments, communication between the owner and user of a copyright work can be made easier and more reliable.
This ensures that once the author and any associated parties have confirmed all details of the record, this cannot be altered or tampered with in any way. This, then, would validate its authenticity for any potential users, authorities, consumers and businesses, and provide reassurance that they are being sold a legitimate product.
Transparency and ease of access is key to encouraging users to seek copyright and licensing permission, and blockchain technologies certainly offer the potential for creators to be more fully compensated for others’ use of their original work.
Blockchain technology has the ability to provide records of IP rights that have a higher degree of certainty, traceability and accountability than other widely used technologies.
As briefly referenced above, smart contracts are another concept linked to blockchain technologies, which could allow IP rights contracts to be automatically issued on behalf of an author when an original work is used. Thanks to this, contracts such as licenses could be established and enforced immediately, and payments made in real time to IP right owners, without the administrative delays and costs associated with current solutions.
Evidence of use of IP rights There are several instances in the world of IP, especially in relation to trademarks, where unequivocal evidence of use can be crucial.
This, in turn, would provide a greater degree of confidence to users and businesses, with an ultimate goal of protecting the rights of IP right owners who may have invested significant time, resources and funds in creating and marketing an original product. IP right infringements and counterfeiting are a destructive force throughout the innovative sector, stripping innovators of their rights and stifling continued creativity across all markets. By providing a blockchain-based facility for recording an original work, we could, as a business community, identify and intercept counterfeits more quickly and, ultimately, combat this damaging and widespread practice. IPPro
A blockchain-based ledger could provide the basis for collecting time-stamped evidence of use or frequency of use of a trademark. Brand owners who register their trademark via this type of ledger would ultimately be able to clearly demonstrate the extent to which 32
IPPro
Vicki Strachan Partner Wynne Jones
For example, in many countries, a registered trade mark can be revoked if it is not used within some defined period of time. Use of a mark can also be essential to help establish its distinctiveness or its reputation, which can be especially relevant where the mark is unregistered.
The primary source of global intellectual property internet news and analysis
www.ipprotheinternet.com
Industry Events
Don’t miss your copy of IPPro Patents GRUR
World IP Forum
Berlin
New Delhi
September 2018
November 2018
26-29 grur.org
London IP Week
Toulouse
London
December 2018
December 2018
ipseminar.eu
IPPro
worldipforum.com
Airbus IP Seminar
06-07 34
14-16
10-13 londonipweek.com
Protect Your Intellectual Property Worldwide RWS is the world’s leading expert in intellectual property (IP), legal translations, foreign patent filing, patent search and database services.
Ensure top quality. Cut costs and save resources. Simplify and streamline.
Patent Translations
PCT National Phase Entry
Direct Filing
European Validation
Patent Searches
www.rws.com