Conference Special
11 June 2019
The Romance of the Ecommerce Platforms Has Alibaba found its place in the war on counterfeits? YouTube Copyright How YouTube’s copyright system can work for everyone
The House of Mouse Disney tackles the loss of its most prized possession
Don’t miss the obvious...
Ê Ê
Ê
...or the obscure Ê Ê
Ê
Identify potential partners and licensing opportunities Monitor market trends and key competitors Avoid infringement and parallel development with Minesoft’s web-based patent solutions
analyticsV2 Visit www.minesoft.com today to keep your business on track
global patent solutions
In this issue
p19
Editor: Barney Dixon barneydixon@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)208 075 0928
Reporter: Ben Wodecki benwodecki@blackknightmedialtd.com
p30
The Romance of the Ecommerce Platforms
Altering the deal
As Alibaba takes centre stage as an anti-counterfeiting leader, perceptions surrounding the platform are shifting, and rightly so
Analysing YouTube’s copyright systems
Fictional Characters
Web Analytics
+44 (0)208 075 0926
Designer: James Hickman jameshickman@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)208 075 0930
Contributors: Becky Butcher
Disney’s recent Fox buyout and its fading copyright protection for Mickey Mouse raise a number of questions about protecting fictional characters
p22
Account Manager: Bea Ipaye beaipaye@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)208 075 0933
Associate Publisher: John Savage johnsavage@blackknightmedialtd.com
Machine Translations
Minesoft’s Alexander Spencer discusses the role machine translations plays with regard to the future of IP
+44 (0)208 075 0931
p28
Publisher: Justin Lawson justinlawson@blackknightmedialtd.com +44 (0)208 075 0929
Office Manager: Chelsea Bowles accounts@blackknightmedialtd.com Published by Black Knight Media Ltd Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved
Stanislav Rumyantsev of Gorodissky & Partners discusses recent case law in relation to web analytics and cookies
Domain Names
Nathalie Dreyfus of Dreyfus & associés discusses how to ensure domain names remain an asset
p40
p25
Expert Witnesses
Varun Sharma and Manish Aryan of LexOrbis discuss the origins and uses of hot-tubbing when handling expert witnesses
p36
Payment Problems
Justin Simpson of Billtrader explains how the platform can help those who want to avoid unnecessary charges when moving money around the world
p43
Subscribe now for free
www.ippromagazine.com
3 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
Intellectual Property in an Innovative World
News Focus IP rights relate to SME growth, reveals EPO and EUIPO study Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that seek intellectual property protection have a greater chance of experiencing higher growth than those that don’t, according to a joint European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) study. The study revealed that SMEs who file one form of IP are 21 percent more likely to experience a growth period afterwards, and are 10 percent more likely to become a high growth firm than firms without IP rights applications. It showed SMEs that seek IP rights at a European level have a 17 percent greater chance of becoming a high growth firm. SMEs that create bundles of trademarks, patents, and designs instead of filing singular rights have a 33 percent chance of becoming a high growth firm, according to the joint study. SMEs that file a European patent are 110 percent more likely to experience high growth in high-tech industries, comparatively, that number is 172 percent in low-tech industries. SMEs represent 99 percent of all businesses in the EU, and contribute almost 60 percent of the EU’s GDP. Christian Archambeau, executive director of EUIPO, commented: “SMEs, and high growth firms, in particular, are the heroes of the European economy, helping to drive innovation and value.” “Our report clearly shows the relationship between IP rights and high growth firms, in which trademarks, as well as other IP rights, have a crucial part to play. An SME that has recently registered at least one trademark is 13 percent more likely to experience high growth in the future.” EPO president António Campinos added: “Some 30 percent of EPO applicants are SMEs, entrepreneurs, universities or public research organisations so it is essential to continue facilitating their access to the European market in order to commercialise their inventions. It has a tremendous impact on growth and job creation, and public authorities at the European and national level should increase their efforts to support this goal.”
5 IPPro
Ciprun Global hires new director of business development Ciprun Global, the US-based subsidiary of Chinese-based Ciprun Group, has hired Will Fawcett as its new director of business development. Fawcett will focus on generating business opportunities, as well as developing and driving business relationships. Previously, he spent over four years at State Street’s Global Advisors as both a consultant relations officer and a relationship management analyst, respectively. Eric Giler, Ciprun Global’s CEO commented: “In his short time here, Will Fawcett has already proven to be a tremendous asset to the Ciprun Global team.” “Building on his experience building and maintaining trusted client relationships, I am confident that Will will continue to identify and secure opportunities for us to grow our business through new channels and strategic partnerships. We are very excited to have him on board.”
www.ippromagazine.com
News Focus Estar medical secures revocation of Regenlab plasma patent at EPO The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a Regenlab patent related to platelet-rich plasma after finding it lacked both novelty and added matter. Estar Medical filed an opposition to the European patent (2,073,862 B1) in 2017. It was revoked in April following an EPO hearing. Estar was also successful in obtaining a revocation order from the UK High Court in January for the same Regenlab patent due to it lacking novelty and an inventive step. An application to amend the UK patent from Regenlab was refused by the UK Patent Courts, which ruled that the amended patent would still be invalid. The UK Patent Court also denied Regenlab permission to appeal that judgement and was forced to pay “extensive legal expenses” to Estar.
6 IPPro
Estar has previously secured infringement victories against Regenlab in both Germany and New York Aaron Esteron, the CEO of Estar Medical said the company was “extremely pleased by the EPO ruling”. He commented: “It has been our position from the start that the Regenlab blood separation patent was false and should have never been granted, and we are happy that the EPO shares the same view”. “Estar Medical has remained confident in its position since the opposition was filed in 2017.” “It is gratifying to see that confidence affirmed.” “We believe that this additional win at the EPO ... further validates Estar Medical’s undisputed leadership position in the global platelet-rich plasma, regenerative medicine and autologous cell therapy markets.”
www.ippromagazine.com
News Focus
Dean Bertoncelj/shutterstock
Holy Smoke: Iron Maiden sues video game company over TM infringement Heavy metal band Iron Maiden has filed a lawsuit against video game company 3D Realms accusing it of infringing the band’s trademarked name with its game Ion Maiden.
The game’s infringement is, according to the band, “incredibly blatant” and “clearly intentional and calculated to deceive consumers”.
Ion Maiden is an ‘old-school’ first person shooter, similar to the original Duke Nukem or Doom games.
The band is seeking a trial by jury along with statutory damages of $2 million, the issuing of temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against 3D realms from using the name, and destruction of all infringing products.
Iron Maiden has video games using its licensed name, the first game, Ed Hunter, released in 1999. In 2015, Iron Maiden released Legacy of the Beast, a game that received 700,000 downloads in the US alone, according to the complaint. In a lawsuit filed at the US District Court for the Central District of California, Iron Maiden claimed that Ion Maiden used a “nearly identical” name “without authorisation, in an effort to confuse consumers into believing [3D Realms’] products and services are somehow affiliated with or approved by Iron Maiden”. The lawsuit argued that “confusion is undeniable” due to the use of the game’s name. Iron Maiden also argued that Ion Maiden has “the same look and feel” as Legacy of the Beast. The lawsuit claimed that there have been “numerous instances of actual confusion with Iron Maiden fans” who have believed the infringing game is affiliated with the band. 8 IPPro
3D Realms vice president Frederik Schreibe responded to the lawsuit via a statement on video game platform Steam. He said: “From what we’ve heard, the suit claims our main character, Shelly Harrison, originally debuting in Bombshell, is based on their musician Steve Harris; our skull bomb icon found in-game is based on their skeleton mascot Eddie; our logo in itself is based on theirs; and other frivolous claims anyone who has played Ion Maiden would find more over the top than Shelly’s ‘Loverboy’, her signature 18-round triplebarreled revolver.” “We at 3D Realms, our co-publishers 1C Entertainment, and developer Voidpoint will review our options once we receive official notice of the lawsuit and will make any necessary decisions at the appropriate time. Regardless, everyone continues to work diligently on Ion Maiden to deliver the best possible experience later this year.” www.ippromagazine.com
News Focus SCOTUS agrees to hear state copyright suit immunity case The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case questioning whether Congress had the power to repeal states’ immunity from lawsuits for copyright infringement when it created the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.
He filed a lawsuit, only for the state to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Eleventh Amendment’s provision of state sovereign immunity shields the state from such claims in Federal Court.
In its writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Frederick Allen, and his company Nautilus Productions, accused the state of North Carolina and its Department of Natural and Cultural Resources of infringing his copyrighted work.
The state argued that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act’s express abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity is “invalid and ineffective”.
Nautilus commercialises videos and still images of the wreck and salvage efforts of Blackbeard’s infamous ship, the Queen Anne’s Revenge. The ship ran aground on the coast of North Carolina in 1718. Allen said the state infringed the work by reproducing and displaying it online without authorisation. His works are registered with the US Copyright Office.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the state’s claim that it could not be sued. Allen asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, stating that US states would be “free to resist at their pleasure that federal law which we claim is the supreme law of the land”. He added that creators of original expression like himself “will be left without remedy when states trample their federal copyrights”.
Protect your IP online .com.ar .ch .at .sg .com.br .ro .it .bike .com.au .co.nz and many more... .sk .hosting .ae .jp .brussels .si .lv .dk .gr .us .se .lawyer .ass .li .com ociates .cr .claims .safe .de .ie .fi .no .pl .bank .lt .company .cz .es .pt
Domain name specialist since 1999
.uk
.shop
.ru .hr
.be .net
Excellent support
Every possible extension T: +44 20 3393 4858
9 IPPro
For brand owners & TM offices
info@bNamed.net
www.bNamed.net
www.ippromagazine.com
News Focus INTA to introduce brand restrictions committee The International Trademark Association (INTA) will introduce a full-time committee dedicated to brand restrictions from 2020, association CEO Etienne Sanz De Acedo has announced. Speaking at the opening ceremony of INTA’s 2019 Annual Meeting in Boston, which drew more than 11,000 attendees, Sanz De Acedo put into action a plan that he had spoken about earlier in the year. During an interview with IPPro at INTA’s Europe conference in Paris, Sanz De Acedo suggested the idea of a full-time committee dedicated to the topic as “plain packaging and brand restrictions are no longer an emerging issue but a real problem for brand owners and consumers”.
Video_Creative/shutterstock
Man sentenced for counterfeit prescription drugs A 23-year-old man has been sentenced to 46 months for possession with intent to distribute counterfeit prescription drugs. Robert Ashton Kerns of Long Beach, Mississippi, was sentenced by US District Judge Sul Ozerden and, in addition to the 46 months, received a further three years of supervised release.
He said that INTA wanted to be “in line with the changing times in our society” and needed to “permanently monitor what is going on” and “be ready to anticipate the future”. Sanz De Acedo said: “One of the things that was very appealing to me when I joined INTA is that it is very well structured and its governance is very robust. We reinforce that, permanently nominating and repopulating the committees through the planning committee.”
Counterfeit oxycodone and Xanax were found after officers arrested him last year. Oxycodone is used to treat moderate to severe pain, while Xanax is used to treat anxiety disorders.
“Everything we do is based on vision, strategy, implementation, and assessment.”
The fake pills were found to contain the deadly drug fentanyl, a powerful opiate. He was charged in June last year and pled guilty in March this year.
Alongside its new brand restrictions committee, INTA announced the creation of committees on the commercialisation of brands and brands for a better society by 2020.
Michael Best brings hires Arimi Yamada Michael Best has hired Arimi Yamada as a partner in its intellectual property practice group in Washington DC. A former founding partner at Typha IP, Yamada covers her practice on all IP areas with a focus on patent matters for Japanese business in the US. Yamada brings 20 years of experience advising clients on content related to both the US Patent and Trademark Office and the Japan Patent Office. Her industry work covers various technologies, including computer software, telecommunications, semiconductors, and organic chemistry.
10 IPPro
Glen Weitzer, chair of Michael Best’s IP practice group, commented: “We are excited about this opportunity to strengthen our IP capabilities for companies in Asia, specifically the Japanese market.” “Alongside our colleague, Yoichiro Yamaguchi, who himself has an extensive overseas network and experience in Japanese IP law, the addition of Arimi Yamada will further open up doors to collaboration with attorneys in the corporate, labour and employment, real estate and government relations practices to assist their growth in the Japanese market.”
www.ippromagazine.com
News Focus Theft of US IP by China is an ‘unfounded fabrication’, claims white paper Theft of US intellectual property by Chinese entities is “an unfounded fabrication”, according to a white paper released by China’s State Council Information Office. The white paper, titled ‘China’s Position on the China-US Economic and Trade Consultations’, states that China is open to cooperation with the US, but warns that it will “not compromise on major issues of principle”.
The US and China have been involved in a proverbial trade war since US president Donald Trump took office. He imposed a number of tariffs against China, accusing it of continually stealing US IP. China has always rebuffed this and, despite talks, no trade deal between the nations is close to fruition. The white paper argues that China is fully committed to protecting IP and that its newly restructured protection system “has achieved impressive results”.
It stated: “China does not want a trade war, but it is not afraid of one and it will fight one if necessary.”
The white paper notes that IP applications registrations “surged” both nationally and internationally. China filed 53,000 PCT filings in 2018 according to figures from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), only 3,000 less than the leader, the US. Despite the tensions, the white paper emphasises that both nation’s economies “are highly integrated and together constitute an entire industrial chain”.
The white paper claims the US has “turn[ed] a blind eye to China’s unremitting efforts and remarkable progress in protecting IP and improving the business environment for foreign investors”. It states that the US has ignored improvements to its IP systems, which includes the recent cut in patent and trademark review times, the setting up of a specialist IP rights court, and successful alterations to its IP office, which is now known as China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).
Both economies, according to the white paper, are “bound in a union that is mutually beneficial and win-win in nature. The restrictive measures the US has imposed on China are not good for China or the US, and still worse for the rest of the world.”
It accuses the US of issuing “a myriad of slanted and negative observations”.
C H A N D R A K A N T M. J O S H I INDIAN PATENT & TRADE MARK ATTORNEYS (Established in 1968)
SOLITAIRE-II, 7th FLOOR, OPP. INFINITY MALL, LINK ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI-400 064, INDIA Tel.: +91-222 888 6858 Fax: Fax No: +91-222 888 6859/65 Email: mail@cmjoshi.com info@cmjoshi.com Web.: www.cmjoshi.us Our law firm has been exclusively practicing Intellectual Property Rights matters since 1968. The clientele of the firm includes multinationals, Research Institutes, Private and Public Companies. The law firm represents its global clients not only in India but also in many other countries around the world. Our law takes pride in its ethical standards, quality of services and best law practices. The firm has specialists in the field of Chemical, Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, Electronic and Mechanical Patent Law and Practice in India.
Areas of Practice: . Patent and Trade Mark Search, Patent and Trade Mark Watch. . Registration, post registration and Infringement etc. for Patent, Trade Marks, Design and Copyright. . Translation of Patent Specification. . Franchise and Joint Venture Agreements, Cyberlaw, Mergers and Acquisition.
Other Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad & Chennai
11 IPPro
Member: IPR Professional Associations: U.S.A., U.K.,Germany, Japan, France, Italy et.al.
Languages: English, French, German & Italian.
Contact Person: Mr. HIRAL CHANDRAKANT JOSHI
www.ippromagazine.com
Minesoft partners with Darts-ip for PatBase upgrade Minesoft has launched a new global case law information service, in collaboration with Darts-ip, for its PatBase database. According to Minesoft, basic litigation information will be shown within the PatBase legal status browser, with more details available through a direct link to Darts-ip’s case law database. PatBase currently offers a searchable database of patents, utility models and designs. Minesoft said that the addition of the Darts-ip case law database would allow IP professionals to “locate, trace and view the complex area of litigation within the IP landscape”. Olivier Huc, senior business development manager at Minesoft, commented: “Thanks to this new partnership with Darts-ip, PatBase users will be able to more easily access often hard-to find litigation data, complementing the comprehensive legal status module already available on the platform. We look forward to a continued collaboration with Darts-IP. We highly respect how hard they’ve worked to compile this remarkable database.” Darts-ip head of data and analytics, Mihnea Hanganu, added: “Whether they are in the process of applying for a patent, conducting an FTO search or drafting a competitive intelligence report, PatBase users will be able to leverage global data on prosecution and litigation.”
US Copyright Office director requests STELAR Act section 119 revocation US Copyright Office director and register of Copyrights Karyn Temple has urged Congress not to renew the satellite compulsory copyright licence within the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act. The STELAR Act extends expiring provisions relating to the retransmission of signals of television broadcast stations. Section 119 of the act establishes a compulsory licensing regime for transmissions of distant signal programming. Temple was responding to a letter from Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and ranking member Doug Collins who were seeking her feedback as compulsory license nears expiration and Congress considers reauthorising it. Section 119 modifies a copyright owner’s exclusive right to publicly perform and display their work and replaces it with a right to be remunerated when others use the work within the scope of the compulsory license. Temple wrote to Nadler and Collins reminding them that the Copyright Office has long recommended not extending the license. In her letter responding to the Senators, she attached information showing that usage of section 119 has “plummeted” since 2019. Royalties paid under section 119 dropped massively in 2018 compared to 2014. Temple stated that the dramatic decline in royalties paid is due to a drop in the overall number of distant network stations carried and the disappearance of non-network superstations, like WGN. The US Copyright Office’s stance, which Temple reiterated states that section 119 “should sunset without authorization”. The letter concludes: “Congress would be justified in allowing section 119 to expire even if the other video compulsory licenses are left untouched for an indefinite period.”
EUIPO and EURid launch anti-bad faith domain service The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and EURid have created a service for EU trademark applications aimed at curbing cybersquatting and bad faith domain name registrations. The opt-in service will allow EU trademark applicants will receive notifications stating whether an identical domain name to their trademark has been registered. According to a joint release from the two companies, trademark applications are vulnerable to being registered as domain names by third parties as soon as they are published. This new service will aim to stop that.
12 IPPro
The EUIPO and EURid hope that such notification will allow rights holders “to take appropriate action much more quickly than if they had to conduct a search themselves”. Such speed could also lead to other multiple bad faith domains being discovered. Both organisations, who have been in collaboration since 2016, signed a letter of collaboration at the International Trademark Association (INTA) Annual Meeting in Boston.
www.ippromagazine.com
Need IP innovation?
Here’s the solution
News Focus
SUEPO calls off EPO strike The Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) has called off its strike following a meeting with EPO president António Campinos. In a message to staff, titled ‘Update on Social Dialogue’, Campinos revealed he had met with both the Central Staff Committee (CSC) and SUEPO Central to discuss staff concerns, including a recent financial study and the office’s performance evaluation exercises. There had been concern around the potential measures the office may take in the future to influence its financial sustainability and how that might affect staff. Campinos committed to making sure that any financial proposals put to the European Patent Organisation’s Administrative Council will include provisions that “safeguard the right of our colleagues to have enough time to make well
informed and timely decisions concerning their future”. On performance evaluation, Campinos said he had been made aware that staff were concerned they are at risk of the ”incompetence procedure” as a result of a recent exercise. Campinos said that more than 92 percent of staff performed at the required level or above, buthe noted that 6 percent of staff have been evaluated as being below the level required for the seniority and function, which corresponds to the former mark ‘acceptable with areas of improvement’. Some 2 percent were evaluated as being “far below the level required”. Campinos added: “I would like to clarify that even in cases where the staff member is evaluated as being in the category ‘far below’, this does not mean that the staff member will be automatically subject to the incompetence procedure.” “The incompetence procedure is triggered only in very exceptional circumstances. As such, the incompetence procedure would only apply in a tiny number of cases. In these cases, our office must also work to support the concerned staff member with the full array of tools at its disposal to bring the staff member back up to the standard required. In the last five years only one staff member has been dismissed due to incompetence.”
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
14 IPPro
SUEPO said it had decided not to strike “this time”. A source close to the staff union said its patience had reached its limits, hence the call for the strike. The source said previous “deleterious” policies and management that had arrived under previous EPO president, Benoît Battistelli, had remained in place one year after Campinos’ arrival. However, during Campinos’ meetings with the CSC and SUEPO he had shown signs of “compromise”. The source added: “SUEPO is a responsible social partner and decided to give him a chance, therefore it suspended the called strike for now. However, SUEPO will monitor his concrete actions (or lack thereof) and if need be, will go back to its members again.” www.ippromagazine.com
US Copyright Office denies giving copyright protection to ‘fake’ Bitcoin authors The US Copyright Office has hit back at claims that it allowed copyright protection to an individual falsely claiming to be the original author of the white paper covering Bitcoin. Craig Steven Wright filed for copyright protection on the white paper, originally penned by blockchain creator Nakamoto (a name used by the unknown person or persons who developed Bitcoin and authored the whitepaper) at the US Copyright Office. The original identity of Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System author Satoshi Nakamoto has been a mystery. Wright has claimed to be its author.
AWA Asia brings hires senior life sciences attorney AWA’s Asia has hired Hai Liu as a senior patent attorney. Liu focuses his practice on the life sciences sector and has previously worked for various Chinese intellectual property firms. He spent over a decade advising domestic and multinational corporations, universities and research institutes. Liu has also worked with Chinese pharmaceutical companies, covering filing strategies, validity searches and infringement analysis. Ai-Leen Lim, CEO and principal counsel of AWA Asia, commented: “Hai Liu brings a wealth of China and international experience to our patent team in Beijing and his industry experience within both the chemistry and life sciences sectors compliments the full-service offering we provide to our clients.” “I am delighted to see the patent team expanding so quickly after it launched almost two years ago.”
Ran Neu-Ner, founder and CEO of Onchain Capital, a crypto investment and advisory business and the host of CNBC’s Crypto Trade Show, said the idea of Wright obtaining copyright protection for the document was “a scary thought”. He Tweeted: “I think the crypto world is grossly underestimating the implications of the latest move by Craig Wright.” “If he is awarded the copyright for the code and white paper, he could stop people from using it without [an] agreement.” In response to mass claims that Wright isn’t Nakamoto, the Copyright Office said in a statement: “As a general rule, when the Copyright Office receives an application for registration, the claimant certifies as to the truth of the statements made in the submitted materials.” “The Copyright Office does not investigate the truth of any statement made.” “A registration represents a claim to an interest in a work protected by copyright law, not a determination of the truth of the claims therein.” “It is possible for multiple, adverse claims to be registered at the Copyright Office.” “The Copyright Office does not have an opposition procedure for copyright registrations, such as the procedures available at the US Patent and Trademark Office.” “Disputes over the claims in a registration may be heard before federal courts, including disputes over authorship of a work.” “Someone who intentionally includes false information in an application may be subject to penalties.” The US Copyright Office said it had asked Wright to confirm he was the author and claimant of the works being registered, which he did. In an incident in which a work is registered under a pseudonym, the Copyright Office said it “does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author”. A second application was unearthed days later, with Wei Lei from the US also claiming ownership of the white paper.
15 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
Online brand protection
with an impact.
MARKET PROTECT.
SOCIAL PROTECT.
DOMAIN PROTECT.
PAID SEARCH PROTECT.
APP PROTECT.
DISTRIBUTION PROTECT.
CASE MANAGEMENT.
INVESTIGATIONS.
GET A WINNING BRAND PROTECTION STRATEGY
Request a free live demo! pointerbrandprotection.com
Naritaweg 116 - 1043 CA, Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 (0)20 30 319 35 / info@pointerbp.com
Request a demo!
US Copyright Office director requests STELAR Act section 119 revocation US Copyright Office director and register of Copyrights Karyn Temple has urged Congress not to renew the satellite compulsory copyright licence within the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act. The STELAR Act extends expiring provisions relating to the retransmission of signals of television broadcast stations. Section 119 of the act establishes a compulsory licensing regime for transmissions of distant signal programming. Temple was responding to a letter from Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and ranking member Doug Collins who were seeking her feedback as compulsory license nears expiration and Congress considers reauthorising it. Section 119 modifies a copyright owner’s exclusive right to publicly perform and display their work, replacing it with a right to be remunerated when others use the work within the scope of the compulsory license. Temple wrote to Nadler and Collins reminding them that the Copyright Office has long recommended not extending the license. In her letter responding to the Senators, she attached information showing that usage of section 119 has “plummeted” since 2019. Royalties paid under section 119 dropped massively in 2018 compared to 2014. Temple stated that the dramatic decline in royalties paid is due to a drop in the overall number of distant network stations carried and the disappearance of non-network superstations, like WGN. The US Copyright Office’s stance, which Temple reiterated states that section 119 “should sunset without authorisation”. The letter concludes: “Congress would be justified in allowing section 119 to expire even if the other video compulsory licenses are left untouched for an indefinite period.”
17 IPPro
EUIPO finds counterfeits cause €55 million in lost sales each year Up to €55 million is lost in sales in the EU each year due to counterfeiting, according to figures from the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). EUIPO’s 2019 status report on intellectual property rights infringement shows that €110 are lost per EU inhabitant, with over 460,000 jobs lost due to counterfeiting. The total contribution of IP rights-intensive industries to the EU economy accounts for 42 percent of GDP (€5.7 trillion) and 28 percent of employment, according to the EUIPO. Clothing is the leading sector suffering from lost sales due to counterfeiting, losing over €28 million. Medicines are the second most-suffering sector suffering from lost sales due to counterfeiting, losing €9 million. Overall losses of sales equate to 7.4 percent of overall sales in 11 sectors studied by the EUIPO. Those sectors included spirits and wine, pharmaceuticals and smartphones, among others. Christian Archambeau, executive director of the EUIPO commented: “Europe depends on industrial sectors like the 11 sectors studied here for its growth and job creation. But our research work shows how counterfeiting and piracy can put growth and jobs at risk.” “We carry out this analysis, and our wider body of research, to support policymakers in devising solutions to this problem, and to help make EU consumers aware of the economic consequences of counterfeiting and piracy at a wider level.” www.ippromagazine.com
+33 (0) 1 84 17 45 32 contact@ipzen.com www.ipzen.com
Case Management Manage files online
Trademark Management
Track activities
Access your portfolios online
Attach documents
Automatically calculate deadlines
Share Information
Integrate trademark data easily
Integrated Invoicing Generate invoices directly from your files
Domain Name Management Manage your domain names online
Consolidate files into a invoice
Track deadlines
Track payments
Sort domain names by category Check availability online
Deadline Tracking View all deadlines in a snap Select people and delegate task
Watch Services Trademarks Domain names Social media
YOUR IP SOFTWARE SOLUTION IN THE CLOUD
The Romance of the Ecommerce Platforms As Alibaba takes centre stage as an anticounterfeiting leader, perceptions surrounding the platform are shifting, and rightly so Barney Dixon reports If you’d said three years ago that Alibaba would be leading the charge against counterfeits on ecommerce platforms, you’d likely have been met with some confused stares, not in the least from a number of fashion brands who pinned all their counterfeiting woes on the platform. Alibaba’s history, and notoriety, as a marketplace for fakes dogged it for years, culminating in major backlash when the company was invited to join the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC). Alibaba’s application for membership of the organisation, which was previously restricted to brands, law firms, associations, investigators, product security specialists, government agencies and universities, was unanimously approved by the IACC’s board of directors in 2016. The IACC had said it would accept intermediaries as ‘general members’ in a bid to have them do more to fight counterfeits available online. At the time, Alibaba had been refocusing its anticounterfeiting efforts and had demonstrated its commitment to the IACC’s MarketSafe programme.
Elina_Li/shutterstock
But this wasn’t enough to stop the backlash and in May 2016 major fashion brands such as Tiffany, Gucci and Michael Kors quit the IACC in protest at the ecommerce giant joining the organisation. Alibaba has always claimed that these perceptions are far from the truth and shortly after its membership of the IACC was suspended, Alibaba president Michael Evans told attendees of 2016’s IACC Spring Conference to “set [their] perceptions aside”. “I know some of you, maybe many of you, are skeptical of Alibaba. And you see us as part of the problem, not as a problem solver,” he said. “But, change is difficult. New ideas can be threatening, especially to those who benefit from maintaining the status quo. But we cannot and will not allow a tyranny of the minority to thwart progress in this area. So while the general membership category continues to be evaluated by the IACC board and its members, we will continue to focus on ways to collaborate in this war.” Now on a new front in the war against counterfeits, has Alibaba evolved? Or was it always the great collaborator and the only thing that has changed is perceptions?
The long divided One thing that is undeniable is that Alibaba has changed. Just three years ago, there was no Intellectual Property Protection Platform, no Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance and no Cloud Sword Alliance. Alibaba’s résumé is now a long story, one that is told through the platform’s collaboration with brands. Matthew Bassiur, vice president and head of global IP enforcement at Alibaba, says the platform has evolved in a number of ways over the past few years, but its collaborative efforts have been its key success.
Elina_Li/shutterstock
He adds that the platform is “very transparent in our IP rights protection efforts, and we are looking for advanced cooperation with all external stakeholders”. Framing this collaboration is Alibaba’s three core pillars: notice and takedown, proactive monitoring and offline 20 IPPro
enforcement. In terms of notice and takedown, and in the context of its collaboration, Alibaba has its IP Protection Portal, which Bassiur describes as a “one-stop-shop for rights holders in terms of registration and reporting”. He explains that, in 2018, the portal was able to address 96 percent of all takedown requests within the first 24 hours. In relation to its second pillar, Alibaba claims to have successfully removed 96 percent of all suspected listings on its platform before a single sale was made. Bassiur says that one very important statistical breakdown for 2018 is that there were 32 percent fewer takedown requests from rights holders, while there was a 67 percent decline in the number of proactive removals. “Fewer requests for takedowns coming in from rights holders cannot be attributed to them giving up on their enforcement, it’s that they are finding fewer infringements on the platform because our proactive systems are working.” Alibaba’s third pillar—which is more in line with Bassiur’s background—is just as important as its online counterparts. Bassiur says the company’s philosophy is that the online environment is merely reflective of the offline reality. “Counterfeiting existed long before the internet and ecommerce”, he says, “in our view, if you really want to make a change, you have to go after the manufacturers, suppliers and distributors”. In 2018, Bassiur says Alibaba referred over 1,630 IP-related leads to law enforcement and contributed to the arrest of 1,953 criminal suspects. Despite these successes, Bassiur argues that counterfeiters will find somewhere else to go and that there is no secret weapon to solve the issues, but collaboration can make a difference and “Alibaba’s philosophy is that we are all part of the solution”. www.ippromagazine.com
Bassiur observes that the law requires a notice and takedown system, but no laws require the proactive monitoring and offline enforcement.
Bassiur says the alliance takes collaboration “to the next level” by showing that everyone is part of the solution and must contribute in order to “enhance and advance”.
He says platforms must have their hearts in proactive enforcement and they must truly believe their marketplaces will be better off without counterfeits, because there is nothing forcing them to do it.
He explains: “As we look at the new brands joining the alliance throughout 2019, it’s a testament to Alibaba’s ability to not only maintain a leadership role, but to think outside the box on what is needed in order to bring these external stakeholders together.”
He says: “It’s all based upon trust at every level, including knowing the authenticity of the product at the starting point.” Bassiur says Alibaba has taken a leadership role in IP rights protection, which the platform feels is its “responsibility”. “We cannot let our guard down for even a moment”, he adds, “This is a multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise; counterfeiters are not going to stop in this low-risk highreward enterprise”. “If there is money to be made, which there is, there is no doubt that we will continue to see them honing their skills to try and beat our systems.”
Reunification When Alibaba was suspended from the IACC, it had lost the trust of brands. Three years on, the tables have almost completely turned.
“We currently have over 180,000 brands and millions of SMEs operating on Alibaba’s platforms, which certainly demonstrates the trust they are placing within us. Every brand has to understand the tools that are available to them, and we need to ensure that we are advancing those tools to stay ahead of the counterfeiters.” “We have had a lot of new members; some of them had been historically critical of Alibaba, but since came around to not only appreciate what we offer in terms of IPR enforcement, but actually join our alliance to ensure that we keep enhancing and working together in that environment.”
A new dynasty? Despite its best efforts, Alibaba’s Taobao platform has once again shown up on the US Trade Representative’s Notorious Markets List.
Since the Alibaba Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance was founded in January 2017, it has almost tripled in size, with more than 130 members in 2019.
While Alibaba does not agree with this decision, Bassiur says that the trade representative’s report “actually does recognise that Alibaba’s work in protecting IP rights is moving in the right direction”.
The alliance acts as a partnership between Alibaba and brands working toward the common goal of protecting IP rights on Alibaba platforms.
For example, the report discusses proactive outreach to rightsholders, a one-stop-shop in terms of the IP Protection Portal, and industry collaboration leadership.
It now includes brands from a range of industries, such as Bose, Honda, Samsung, Adobe L’Oreal, Microsoft and Sony.
Bassiur also notes that “not one rights holder or association asked for Alibaba to be included on the US Trade Representative’s list”.
On top of this, one of the proponents of Alibaba’s IACC suspension, Michael Kors, now sits as part of the Alibaba Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance.
Elina_Li/shutterstock
And earlier this year, Bassiur was awarded the Luxury Law Innovator in IP Rights and Technology Award at the Luxury Law Summit, which is made up of leaders and executives from various luxury brands, including Gucci, another former opponent; Louis Vuitton and Chanel. The Alibaba Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance now sits at about half the size of the IACC and shows no signs of stopping its growth. 21 IPPro
“We will continue with the collaboration and increases in Alibaba Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance membership. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what report is good or bad, as long as your heart is in the right place and you choose to be a leader. Others will take notice when you are lead by example, and that is what we are seeing throughout several industries.” Bassiur concludes: “Our philosophy is simple: we will continue to take the lead in IP rights enforcement, regardless of any list or report, because it’s the right thing to do.” www.ippromagazine.com
Fictional Characters • Feature
Taking the Mickey out of Disney Disney’s recent Fox buyout and its fading copyright protection for Mickey Mouse raise a number of questions about protecting fictional characters
Disney recently bought Fox for over $70 billion, obtaining the rights to its media empire and some of the world’s most famous fictional characters.
LeoTraveling/shutterstock
For Disney, protecting its large—and ever growing— portfolio of crazy characters may be manageable, but its most recent purchase raises questions about the methods of intellectual property protection for fictional characters that are at its disposal, and whether there are any issues that arise from obtaining IP protection for some of the world’s most coveted fictional characters.
22 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
Fictional Characters • Feature House of Mouse Copyright doesn’t last forever and for a company with the longevity of Disney, it can be difficult to keep hold of fictional characters without them falling into the public domain. For Disney, this has recently surfaced as a problem—Steamboat Willie, an animated short containing the original depiction of its flagship character, Mickey Mouse, is due to enter the public domain on 1 January 2024. Disney has attempted to tackle this by utilising the character in the Steamboat Willie sequence as part of its 14-second long Walt Disney Animations Studio logo shown before its animated movies. Although the character has been encompassed in the animation studios’ logo since 1928, this latest version encompasses the original video from the short as well as the whistling tune. Disney could also look to obtain a number of trademarks for the character, but obtaining this kind of registration can prove tricky. First, there’s deciding what you want to file. Is it the character moving? Is it the sound of the character that is requiring protecting? Or its name? Categorising such trademarks can be difficult and Chantal Koller, trademark managing director of Novagraaf Switzerland says that the number of possibilities “could end up being an issue” and reminds that applicants are still “bound by the requirement of a graphical representation”. Any non-traditional mark still requires the need to be represented visually for evident publicity reasons.
Italia ‘90’s Ciao may require different protection to that of characters like Mickey Mouse. Kolle says mascots are “more of a business and marketing tool”, and emphasised the need to utilise trademarks to protect them due to their marketing potentials. Protecting such characters through trademarks would allow customs officers to better seize fake products due to the registration certificate/number which serves as evidence of registration. An example of this proving effective was the successful seizure of hundreds of thousands of fake Russian World Cup merchandise featuring Zabivaka, the tournament’s mascot, which was successfully registered by FIFA. But Koller, who works with major sporting bodies, including FIFA, says that too many options and too wide projects can lead to a loss of concentration and successful protection. Koller says IP professionals need to work “hand in hand” with designers to “make sure that not too many branding elements are created”. She adds: “Otherwise you have too many rights requiring protection, which combined with a large territory and a large (defensive) class strategy entails a filing campaign that is not only generating important costs but also results in a rather long procedural time frame, which ends up defeating the purpose of protecting the rights”. Major sporting events usually operate in a four-year cycle. Mascots and characters created for such events last on a shorter life span than the time between events. Koller urges the need to establish a good road map in order to make sure rights are protected efficiently with enough time to avoid issues with trademarking.
“Even if you file a short movie showing a character moving and rotating under all angles, with a very sophisticated tool, you are still limited to the shape and colours of that exact representation or to the position of the character; these are legal limitations of the scope of protection.”
The Mickey Mouse Protection Act
Koller says that the need to represent a mark figuratively is “where limitations appear” and trademark rights are “not as extensive as with copyright”.
Disney faces similar problems when seeking protection for its characters across different media forms, but could it implement the same techniques used for sports mascots?
Objects that are associated with fictional characters can itself merit protection in the US following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling involving the Batmobile. There, the court recognised that the Batmobile was deserving of protection as a type of character, so long as it is “sufficiently delineated”.
For now, Disney will continue to own copyrights for later versions of the character, as well as any Mickey Mouse trademarks, adding another layer of protection to the character and it’s safe to say there won’t be any Mickey Mouse movies made by any other studios just yet.
Sporting successes
But with an ever-growing portfolio of fictional characters, going into the future Disney will likely face this problem time and time again. Until then, beyond seeking another Mickey Mouse Act, the answer for Disney is as yet unclear.
Protecting fictional characters surrounding sporting events, like team mascots like Fred the Red, or event mascots like 23 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
The 33rd MARQUES Annual Conference
#MARQUES19
BRANDS CONFRONTING CHANGE Tuesday 17th - Friday 20th September 2019 Register online at www.marques.org/events
*Early Bird Discount*
Available to members of MARQUES for bookings received before Friday 28th June 2019
Citywest Hotel Garters Ln, Saggart, Co. Dublin D24 KF8A, Ireland
Russia: New case law on web analytics and cookies Stanislav Rumyantsev of Gorodissky & Partners discusses recent case law in relation to web analytics and cookies Russian websites may be required to adopt General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-style cookie policies and use cookie banners because of new case law. Russian courts have recently decided that the personal data law should apply to web analytics and suppressed access to a website that failed to meet the relevant data protection requirements. This judgement definitely makes the web cookies less ‘tasty’ than ever before.
First-instance judgement Last year, the Russian Data Protection Authority, Roskomnadzor, brought an action against a website for a number of data breaches. Tagansky First–Instance District Court of Moscow sustained the claim and decided that the website owner, among other things, had •
•
Used Google Analytics and its Russian equivalent, Yandex Metrica, for collecting and processing personal data; Failed to meet the data protection requirements prescribed by the Federal Law On Personal Data and applicable to the said web analytics tools.
Vladgrin/shutterstock
Google Analytics and Yandex Metrica provide their customers with the detailed statistical and analytical information about visitors, their behaviour, locations, preferences, devices (model, browser, user settings, IP addresses, etc.), probable gender and approximate age, and other details valuable for marketing and business planning purposes (the user data). The user data is collected mostly through cookies, for example, small pieces of text readable by Google Analytics, Yandex Metrica and other web services. The cookie files are recorded on a user’s device 25 IPPro
and stored there for some time or until they are manually deleted. The user data may also be collected through Java scripts (pieces of software incorporated into the HTML-code of a website), and some other instruments. The first-instance judgement does not go into the reasons for classifying the user data as a kind of personal data. Under article 3(1) of the personal data law, personal data includes ‘any information relating to directly or indirectly identified or identifiable natural person (data subject)’. Russian law does not explain what ‘an identifiable natural person’ actually means. According to the previous case law, ‘details that allow identifying a natural person should be considered as personal data. If it is impossible to do that without using additional information, such details are not personal data’. In their Scientific and Practical Commentary to the personal data law, Roskomnadzor’s executive officers supported this understanding of personal data, stating that ‘information must not be considered as personal data if it is not possible to identify a natural person with this information without the use of additional information’. These conclusions are based on article 3(9) of the personal data law, defining the term ‘data anonymisation’ as a process that makes it impossible to attribute a piece of personal data to a particular data subject without the use of additional information. Russian ecommerce companies used to believe that the web analytics had not given them such additional information that could transform the depersonalised users into the data subjects. Hence, most of the websites had not extended their privacy policies and data protection measures on the user data. www.ippromagazine.com
Web Analytics • Feature GDPR-style approach
•
Data processing agreement: Under article 6(3) of the personal data law, the data processing may be assigned to a third party under an agreement containing a number of mandatory terms. This is the darkest side of web analytics, since the website owners cannot negotiate the contractual terms with Google Analytics, Yandex Metrica, and many other global service providers.
•
Localisation requirement: According to article 18(5) of the personal data law, certain data processing activities must be conducted with the use of databases physically located in Russia while collecting personal data from the citizens of Russia. Hence, it is unclear how this may be observed if a Russian website is connected to a global (nonRussian) web analytics service.
GDPR uses almost the same wording for defining the term ‘personal data’ in article 4(1), but the official interpretation is completely different as compared to Russian law. According to GDPR, an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an online identifier. Such identifiers include IP addresses, cookie identifiers, and others. They may be used to create profiles of natural persons and identify them. The personal data law does not prescribe any rules on the online identifiers, web traces, and cookie files. Although non-binding in that country, GDPR could inspire Roskomnadzor and the court to rethink their understanding of personal data in the same way as it is in the EU. The first-instance judgement may be understood such that the website owners should fulfill all data protection requirements prescribed by the personal data law while dealing with the user data. From a formal point of view, there is a long list of such requirements including, among others, the following: •
•
•
Policy document: All websites processing personal data must publish a privacy policy and make it available for the users 24/7. If the user data is considered to be personal data, the use of web analytics, cookies and other similar tools should be reflected in the policy. Legal grounds for data processing: In contrast with GDPR, Russian law does not establish a welldeveloped concept of legitimate interests and encourages the controllers to ask for a data subject’s consent where possible. That is why the website owners should use cookie banners for both informing the users of web analytics and asking for their consent. Data processing notification: Article 22 of the personal data law prescribes that the data controllers file their data processing notifications with Roscomnadzor. Similar notification obligations were abolished in the EU pursuant to recital 89 of GDPR. The Russian notifications must contain a list of all processed data categories and some other details. The user data may consist of various categories determined by a web analytics service. It is therefore unclear how to reflect all of them in the notification.
26 IPPro
As shown above, the requirements of the personal data law raise more questions than give answers regarding the user data. Roskomnadzor commented on the first-instance judgement that it had not suspected Google Analytics and Yandex Metrica of breaching the law. Rather, it is the website owner who must: •
Inform users of the web analytics tools collecting their data
•
Request users to consent to such data collection
•
Publish a policy document
Consequently, Roskomnadzor’s comments introduce a kind of a ‘minimum compliance set’ and they do not shed any light on how to fulfil the localization requirement, conclude the data processing agreements with web analytics providers, and fill out the notification form. Many Russian ebusinesses rely on these comments and do only what is specified there. In addition, they emphasise in their cookie policies that the user data constitutes statistical and depersonalised information and, therefore, it is separated from all kinds of processed personal data. This may help to mitigate compliance risks to a certain extent because the users are informed of the web analytics and they give their explicit consent if they stay on a website after reading the cookie banner. International companies often translate and localise their GDPR policies and cookie banners to use them on Russian websites. www.ippromagazine.com
Web Analytics • Feature Appeal The Moscow City Court affirmed the first-instance judgment without any corrections in an appeal hearing. Hence, this judgement entered in force. Surprisingly, the appeal judgement of the Moscow City Court does not mention the web analytics at all. Instead, it examines several other data breaches committed by the website owner. The compliance challenges arising from extending the personal data law over the web analytics seem to be insuperable unless the relevant rules are added to the personal data law. As of today, there are no bills on this topic. This may be the reason for he Moscow City Court to mask this matter behind other violations revealed by Roskomnadzor. On 6 May 2019, the defendant lodged a cassation appeal and, therefore, the case is going forward. In the meantime, ecommerce companies have to ensure their compliance and begin with publishing Russian versions of cookie policies and banners. That is how the cookie crumbles.
27 IPPro
Stanislav Rumyantsev
Senior lawyer Gorodissky & Partners
www.ippromagazine.com
Vladgrin/shutterstock
“The compliance challenges arising from extending the personal data law over the web analytics seem to be insuperable unless the relevant rules are added to the personal data law.�
Overcoming the language barrier Minesoft’s Alexander Spencer discusses the role machine translations plays with regard to the future of IP As the world becomes interconnected, communication and information sharing are increasingly important. The internet has brought people from all four corners of the world together. Telecommunication devices allow us to easily connect with our friends and colleagues, while social media allows us to share our experiences with the world. Despite these advancements, the language barrier remains an issue. In a world that is becoming ever-more globalised, the ability to cross language barriers is of the utmost importance. In an attempt to overcome this, much development has been made in the area of machine translation.
LeoTraveling/shutterstock
In the past, people viewed machine translations with a degree of ambivalence, as the technology was in its infancy and they were too unreliable. However, the progression made during the technological boom of the 1990s changed machine translating forever.
Before One of the earliest proposals for a translating machine dates back to 1924, in Estonia, where inventor A. Vakher’s model of a translating typewriter appeared in the national newspaper, Vaba Maa. Approximately a decade later, French-Armenian inventor Georges Artsrouni patented his ‘Cerveau mécanique,’ a storage device using paper tape that functioned as a bilingual dictionary. Around the same time, Russian inventor Petr Troyanskii filed a patent application for his invention ‘Machine for picking and printing of words when translating from one language to another’ (see figure 1), a slanted table with a belt connected to it, offering translations of each word in six different languages. Figure 1
This article evaluates the developments made in the field of intralingual machine translation. In addition to the key inventors, inventions and jurisdictions, this article analyses the trends within this field of innovation and the role machine translations play with regard to intellectual property. 28 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
Machine Translations • Feature In the 1950s, following on from American scientists Warren Weaver, Norbert Weiner and Andrew D. Booth’s idea of using computers to translate, Léon E. Dostert, French-American languages scholar of Georgetown University and personal interpreter to General Eisenhower during WWII, filed a patent application for his ‘Method and Apparatus for teaching languages’ (figure 2), a bilingual system which comprised of magnetic tape containing recorded phrases of an unknown language and the corresponding translation in the known language. Unlike previous inventions that sought to simply translate particular words or phrases, Dostert wanted his invention to be used as a mechanism for further language learning and saw computer translation as being a valuable asset. In the same year, inventor Albert Holt of the US-based IBM filed an application for his ‘Indicia Tape Controlling Apparatus’. Holt cited Dostert’s co-pending patent application as a major influence on his invention, illustrating the importance of access to patent information for the advancement of technology. In addition, Dostert’s invention went on to influence more than sixty other inventions, most of which were in the fields of electrical and mechanical engineering. Figure 2
Now The internet has revolutionised translation, allowing machines to be programmed to recognise and localise colloquialisms and formality, as well as correctly interpret syntactical, grammatical and orthographical differences between languages. By analysing the patent information within the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) for machine translation (G06F17/289), we get a clear indication as to who is excelling in this area and an overall idea of the progression that has been made. From this, it is evident that IBM remains ahead of the game. Arguably, the most significant invention to be patented by IBM within this field to date is the ‘Natural Language Analysing Apparatus and Method,’ patented by their Swedish subsidiary, IBM Svenska, in 1989. This system, which followed a more traditional, rule-based method of machine translating, was influenced by the Marconi company’s ‘Translating Device,’ a system that would translate text from the source language to the target language by means of an artificial intermediate language. IBM also cited the ‘Language Processing Dictionary for Bidirectionally Retrieving Morphemic and Semantic Expressions,’ patented by the Japanese NEC Corporation, a system that comprised of a morphemic, semantic and conceptual dictionary, respectfully translating items from one language to another, so as to achieve a more fluid and idiomatic translation. The ‘Natural Language Analysing Apparatus and Method’ by IBM was their most influential invention in this category, cited by more than 600 patent applications. At the turn of the 21st century, significant developments were made within this industry, such as the ‘Machine Translation System, Method and Program’ and the ‘Speech Recognition Text-Based Language Conversion and Text-To-Speech in a Client-Server Configuration to Enable Language Translation Devices’, patented by IBM and Nuance Communication. Unlike the machine translators of yesteryear, that solely translated words or basic phrases, the latter invention contained a speech input device that would process spoken words in the source language and translate them into the target language. These ground-breaking devices inspired other inventions, such as the ‘Method and Apparatus for Identifying Translations,’ a tool developed by the Microsoft Corporation that was able to identify the context of the words in the source text and translate them into the target language accordingly.
29 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
Machine Translations • Feature In the 2010s, one of the most ground-breaking inventions in the field of machine translations was the ‘Presenting Translations of Text depicted in Images,’ a tool developed by Google that can translate text from within an image. The system utilises the camera of a mobile device to visualise the text in the source language. Once the source language is identified, the text is translated into the target language (see Figure 5). Since 1995 there has been a 1,600 percent increase in the number of patent applications filed under the machine translation classification. The sharing of patent information has been the catalyst for this increase in activity, inspiring new developments and inventions.
The future Although the United States ranks top in the number of patent families by jurisdiction in the machine translation classification, one cannot simply overlook the progress being made in East Asia. In more recent years, countries such as China, Japan and South Korea have played an important role in the evolution of machine translation. An example of this innovation is the ‘Foreign Language Sentence Creation Support Apparatus, Method, And Program’ by Japanese company Toshiba, an example-based machine translation system that—unlike the aforementioned rule-based translating device—contains both an index and a sentence storage system, used to find equivalences of sentences in other languages. This invention was influenced by the ‘Method and system for natural language translation,’ by IBM.
Neil Simpkin, managing director of RWS IP Services, explains that Neural Machine Translation has had a huge impact on how the world perceives Machine Translating. What was once a tool generating stilted, poorly comprehensible output has become a genuinely useful aid to understanding and searching massive volumes of data generated across the globe. By combining human translations of highly specialised content, such as patent assignee names in Asia, and extensive bilingual terminology corpora built up over many years by RWS, PatBase has been able to deploy an industry-leading machine translation system. The system translates billions of words of newly published content every month, and its engines are trained specifically for the purpose of patent searching, ensuring that IP researchers have the very latest information at their fingertips as soon as it is published. In this fast-moving world, access to a global patent database, like PatBase, with high quality machine translations of full-text patent information is imperative. Alexander Spencer joined Minesoft in 2019 as a junior executive after studying in the UK, France and Spain and travelling extensively for his previous work in the wine industry. He speaks Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese and currently works across Europe providing support for current customers and showcasing Minesoft’s patent solutions to a range of audiences.
Another example the ‘Method and Electronic Device for Translating Speech Signal’ by the Korean company Samsung; a device that works as an electronic interpreter, verbally translating between two languages, allowing mutually intelligible conversation. If any conclusions can be drawn from this, it is that to truly keep abreast of developments, access to worldwide patent information is essential. In line with the advancements made in machine translation, PatBase, the patent searching database developed by Minesoft, the global patent solutions provider and RWS, the world’s leading providers of patent translations, contains high quality translations of titles, claims, abstracts and full-texts of non-Latin patent data and permits speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Thai to search for patent information in their native language. In addition, the built-in translation tool allows the user to search multiple European language variations of a keyword at the same time, across patent data from 106 countries. 30 IPPro
Alexander Spencer Junior executive Minesoft
www.ippromagazine.com
14 October 2019 The Biltmore Mayfair, London
IP AT THE HEART OF YOUR BUSINESS IPR Events London Ltd, 535 KING’S ROAD, LONDON, SW10 0SZ 020 7352 4356 – info@iprevents.uk – www.londonipsummit.com
YouTube Copyright • Feature
http://www.ippromagazine.com
Altering the deal 36,567 views
Analysing YouTube’s copyright systems
Ben Wodecki Reports published 11/06/2019
SUBSCRIBE 16K
If you speak to a group of YouTubers, many of them will say the platform’s copyright protection systems are constricting and stifling content creators.
Successful creators on YouTube can earn a lot of money. But for those who aren’t as successful as PewDiePie, copyright strikes can damage their livelihoods and income.
ContentID and its peripherals have been painted as a fog that clouds over creators and stops them from creating. Many of these creators, who claim to have made YouTube what it is today, say the system is too prone to abuse and unfairly favours rights holders, who have no burden of proof for infringement.
YouTube introduced a new copyright match tool last July, which can find a user’s re-uploaded content on other channels.
32 IPPro
It also made notable changes to its copyright strike system earlier in the year for the aim of making the strike system “clear and consistent”. www.ippromagazine.com
YouTube Copyright • Feature The conundrum with ContentID For example, Paul Davids, a guitar player who teaches music on his YouTube channel, has over one million subscribers. Last July, he was hit with an arguably improper copyright notice, with one user claiming Davids had infringed their copyright. The piece in the video was an original composition created by Davids. Another notable example is from the witty polemic channel I Hate Everything, which was subject of a copyright takedown from a disgruntled movie director. Derek Savage, director of Cool Cat Saves The Kids, attempted to have a crass review of his movie by the channel taken down, citing copyright infringement. Savage allegedly impersonated a law firm in order to intimidate the channel creator and into removing the video as he didn’t like the review. After the dispute ended under fair use, the video was allowed to stay up, and I Hate Everything referred to YouTube’s copyright system as “f**king embarrassing”. On top of YouTube’s copyright strike system is ContentID, its flagship tool, which is often blamed for many of the platform’s issues. ContentID automatically scans videos that have been uploaded to the platform and checks whether it has been uploaded by another user. It picks up rights holders’ content automatically when it is uploaded. Users can contest the claim under ContentID. Content can also be taken down through a standard takedown notice. While ContentID is often painted as the enemy of YouTube creators, Davids says it is not just the tool that is the problem, but the fact that there are people “manually browsing through videos hoping to see copyrighted material”. He says: “What kind of job is that?” In a video on his channel, Davids revealed that on 15 March this year he received 15 copyright claims in just one hour. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has been far from silent on these issues and recently addressed some of them in a blog post. She said YouTube is already looking into issues regarding entire revenue streams being stripped from videos if they include a second or two of copyrighted music. Wojcicki said YouTube is currently “exploring improvements in striking the right balance between copyright owners and creators”. YouTube also offers an audio library with free to use music, which is updated weekly. 33 IPPro
In its current and most recently updated form, the copyright strike system now provides users with an initial warning whether they have crossed a line, rather than punishing them and their channel from the off. YouTube says that this will allow creators to work out what went wrong so it doesn’t make the same mistake in the future. YouTube says the system will create transparency for all of its creators. According to Lisa Alter, partner at Alter, Kendrick & Baron, contrary to creator complaints, YouTube’s strike system “actually allows infringing content to remain on the site for an extended period of time”. YouTube operates on a three-strike system; the first results in a 90-day freeze on live streaming, the second a two-week freeze on new uploads, and the third a permanent ban. She said despite the system favouring rightsholders, “it actually provides users more time to keep infringing content on their channels without any punishment”. YouTube’s copyright and ContentID systems mean that copyright owners are, according to Alter, “perpetually engaged in a digital version of ‘whack-a-mole’, requiring them to monitor recurring instances of infringing online activity and issue multiple take-down notices—often for the same offending content”. There are a few things the platform could do to better its users understanding of copyright, such as mandatory online tutorials prior to an upload, Alter suggests. She says that any such tutorial “should clearly and concisely explain the basics of copyright protection and provide examples of what constitutes infringing activity”. Alter adds: “YouTube could also provide simple guidelines for users who wish to obtain permission from the copyright owner prior to posting material, which might include links to websites for music publishers and record labels from whom a license might be obtained.” However, in order to help and protect copyright holders, YouTube should institute a permanent takedown policy. Alter emphasises that such a policy should be “strictly enforce[d]”. She explains that it needs to be “more robust, by converting the three-strike system to a two-strike system and extending the period of time that users are banned from uploading content following each strike”. www.ippromagazine.com
Content creators: We spoke to some of the hottest names in YouTubing across music, gaming, and culture to discuss the current YouTube copyright system, the issues they’ve been having, and what they want to see changed the music that claimant takes all of the ad revenue, despite making up less than one percent of the actual content, and that’s honestly the biggest problem with the copyright system overall.
BattlefrontUpdates Joined Jun 17, 2013 185,573 subscribers 65,466,120 views
BattlefrontUpdates is a platform that provides news and content about EA’s Star Wars Battlefront series, as well as the franchise as a whole. The channel is part of EA’s Game Changer programme representing the Battlefront games. What is your opinion on YouTube’s ContentID copyright infringement system? The system in its core is decent but the main problem is that it heavily favours the copyright claimant with very little tools for creators to ‘fight back’. If a huge company claims your video, you just have to accept that. Most importantly, they take all the revenue from a video or live stream that gets claimed, despite it making up only a fraction of the content. How has the current copyright strike system affected you? It has had a pretty drastic effect on my livelihood as I constantly run into the risk of getting any of my livestreams or videos claimed because of four seconds of copyrighted music. I don’t oppose that in its core, but the main problem is that if you stream for one hour or make a one hour video and happen to get a claim on five seconds of 34 IPPro
Two years ago, I used an intro to my videos that included a five-second fan-made jingle that resembles Star Wars and one day Warner Chappell decided they wanted to target my channel. They went in, sorted my channel by most viewed, and claimed over 50 of my most viewed videos as theirs due to that intro’s jingle taking all the revenue from those videos because I had a few seconds of a fan-made jingle on them. Sure, they might legally be allowed to do that, but how morally wrong is that? Being able to rip every piece of revenue from a piece of content because you own less than one percent of the content in that video. In this case, it was also especially dodgy since it was a fan-made jingle so it didn’t use any official music and that’s also why the ContentID system didn’t pick it up until they manually claimed the videos. Another major way I’m affected is I can’t use any type of ingame music in Star Wars: Battlefront 2 as that’s mostly based off the movie music. As soon as I turn on the music when playing the game my live streams or videos will be claimed and I won’t get any revenue whatsoever. What could make YouTube’s copyright system better? Make the revenue that the claimant gets proportional to the length of the copyrighted content, if only one percent of the video contains copyrighted music don’t let the claimant get ALL the revenue. On top of that, Twitch has a good system for live streams where copyrighted music simply gets muted in the VOD and therefore streamers there don’t have to worry about what they play on the stream (other than the fact that large parts of their stream might get muted if they play a lot of copyrighted music). www.ippromagazine.com
WatchMojo Ashkan Karbasfrooshan, CEO & founder Joined YouTube Jan 25, 2007 20,403,031 subscribers 11,838,392,731 views
definitely has spillover—it is absolutely abused by rightsholders and intermediaries, in particular for unlawful monetary gains and even as a censorship tool. YouTube is conditioning the ecosystem into thinking that ContentID equals the law, which it’s not.
Based in Canada, WatchMojo is one of YouTube’s largest channels. It produces listicle videos that have amassed almost 12 billion views.
How has the current copyright strike system affected you?
What is your opinion on YouTube’s ContentID copyright infringement system? It’s not perfect, but required when operating a platform like YouTube at such a scale. It is a constant struggle between ‘confidence interval’ (getting it right) v margin of error (good enough). It’s like nuclear power—when used for good it’s more ‘solution than problem’ but can be weaponised and destructive. It
It causes us actual harm. It’s used sometimes inadvertently to silence us, but mainly causes us harm by virtue of claims/strikes making us lose revenues and incurring added costs to manage frivolous claims. What could make YouTube’s copyright system better? Fully reflect the DMCA. Make abusers of ContentID lose the rights.
Paul Davids Joined YouTube Jun 3, 2009 100,172,274 views 1,085,456 subscribers
whoever filed the claim). Even if you only played two seconds of the song in your 15-minute video, all the ad revenue now goes to them. Which is pretty unfair and also completely frustrating, because there is so little you can do.
Paul is a Dutch guitar player who runs a YouTube channel aiming to inspire budding musicians around the globe. He produces and writes his own music, and provides guitar tutorials and musical theory content, along with much more.
How has the current copyright strike system affected you?
What is your opinion on YouTube’s ContentID copyright infringement system? On paper ContentID is fair, because unlawfully using copyrighted material should not happen and ContentID seems like a great way to fight that. The problem is in the execution. ContentID at this moment is an oversensitive system that is used by claim-happy corporations, which are targeting the wrong people. Take my situation, for example: I, as a guitarist, want to share my knowledge and teach my viewers to play a certain song on the guitar. Using a song for educational purposes falls under fair use, but ContentID it does not look at fair use at all. ContentID is just an algorithm that wouldn’t know the difference. That’s one part of the problem. If you are ‘spotted’ by ContentID using a copyrighted song, you get a claim and ad revenue immediately diverts to the rightsholder (or to 35 IPPro
I haven’t had a copyright strike yet. But that is because I never fought against the issue. That scare tactic works pretty well. I get many copyright infringement claims, which means I’m not making any more money with the videos that are claimed and they can run ads on my videos for themselves. I’ve never fought the issues, even though I’m in my right of fair use, because YouTube is my main job and I don’t want to get any strikes and put my job in danger. What could make YouTube’s copyright system better? A system where fair use is taken into consideration. Where it’s legal to analyse music without getting a slap on the wrist. Maybe a system that works with warnings before giving out strikes. It would be better to turn the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach into a ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach. Give YouTubers a chance to explain or defend their use of the copyrighted material. It would be great if the YouTubers that are serious about it and don’t misuse or abuse copyright purely for their own benefits, get a more protective status, so they are not that vulnerable to these outrageous claims. www.ippromagazine.com
Expert Witnesses • Feature
Rainer Plendl/shutterstock
The advent of hot-tubbing in India Varun Sharma and Manish Aryan of LexOrbis discuss the origins and uses of hot-tubbing when handling expert witnesses The role of experts and their testimony in highly technical matters is indispensable. An expert is generally relied upon to prove or disprove a fact, usually of a complex nature such as one pertaining to technology, financial accounting, foreign law, trade practice or forensics. For example, when the subject matter of any litigation relates to a patented technology in which the opinion of a person skilled in that technology becomes relevant, experts take the 36 IPPro
role of such skilled persons to prove or disprove a fact relating to such technology. Regardless of the importance of experts, there is no denying that an adversarial allegiance of expert towards the party who hires them is always suspected. Even though it might not be apparent, expert testimonies have been found to be susceptible to unconscious biases towards www.ippromagazine.com
Expert Witnesses • Feature the hiring party. Even otherwise, courts have relied upon the opinions of experts with abundant caution. The hazard in acceptance of opinion of an expert is not because it is unreliable evidence, but because human judgment is fallible. The situation becomes more complex when each adversary brings its own expert and the opinions of those experts contradict each other. Where the opinion of a medical witness is contradicted by another medical witness, both of whom are equally competent to form an opinion, the opinion of that expert should be accepted which supports the direct evidence in the case. However, there may be cases in which there is no other direct evidence except contradictory expert opinions on a particular technical fact.
After achieving much popularity over the last few years in various court systems, the hot-tubbing procedure has been successful in seeking attention and appears to be gaining a position even in the ever growing field of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). In 2003, a report was published by the Australian Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators, which mentioned, “the relaxing qualities of the hot tub are well known, and assuming that the experts are competent, honest and genuine, hot-tubbing will achieve narrowing of the differences between the parties”.
Not just in India, doubts shroud over opinions of the experts around the world. An empirical study of judges conducted in Australia, the country where hot-tubbing was first introduced, reveals that 35 percent of judges believe that bias is a serious problem associated with expert evidence.
Hot-tubbing procedures have slowly spread to other countries as well. Countries like Canada, Ireland, the US and India have either started considering implementation of this unique way of expert examination, or have actually implemented these features in some of the courts. In the UK, when Lord Justice Jackson reviewed civil litigation costs in December 2009, he suggested hot-tubbing procedures for expert examination as a pilot programme in his report in 2010. Apparently, hot-tubbing is gaining popularity and acceptance on global level while even evolving with each jurisdiction.
What is hot-tubbing?
The Indian scenario
In order to curb the inherent bias and to correct any misinformation provided by the opposing experts that might be missed during a cross-examination, evidence of two opposing experts are taken concurrently in a ‘hot-tubbing’.
As per section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, opinions upon these points of persons especially skilled in such matters are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
Origin of hot-tubbing Hot-tubbing procedure was first introduced in Australian Trade Practices Tribunal sometime in the 1990s and gained enough popularity to justify its inclusion in the revised Federal Court Rules of 1998 (FCR). The FCR governs the practices of Federal Courts of Australia, in which most federal civil disputes and some minor federal criminal matters are handled.
Relevance of an expert’s opinion finds place in the Indian legal system, but not as a witness of fact. Nonetheless, an expert furnishes necessary scientific information for enabling the judge to form an independent judgment.
Spread of hot-tubbing
Quite recently, Delhi High Court Rules have been amended to incorporate the technique of hot-tubbing in which expert witnesses give evidence simultaneously in each other’s presence and in front of the judge, who puts the same question to each expert witness.
Apart from FCR, other Australian jurisdictions also started exploring the Concurrent Examination procedure of hottubbing. For instance, in 1999 the NSW Supreme Court of Australia introduced hot-tubbing procedures such as pre-trial conferences and joint report, followed by a concurrent hearing. Eventually, hot-tubbing found a place in the Supreme Court Rules in the year 2000. Thereafter, the NSW Land and Environment Court followed the Supreme Court and started issuing practice guidelines which included hottubbing procedures. 37 IPPro
However, without examining the expert as a witness in Court, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone.
So far, however, the procedure of hot-tubbing is applicable only in commercial suits. As per the amendment: “When parties to a commercial suit wish to rely on the hot-tubbing method for deposition of expert witness, the Court may adopt procedures as outlined below: www.ippromagazine.com
Expert Witnesses • Feature a.
At pre-trial stage, expert witnesses from both sides meet at a place convenient to both and prepare a Joint Statement which shall be filed before the court.
b.
Joint statement is representation of agreed statement of facts and disputed issues.
c.
Thereafter, the parties shall file the suggested questions to be put to the expert witnesses.
d.
The hearing is fixed and conducted on the disputed issues.
e.
Counsels may put questions to the expert witnesses as may be permitted by the court.
f.
The court shall draw up the issues on which expert witnesses agree and disagree at the end of the hearing procedure.
On the issues where the expert witnesses disagree, the court shall record their statements.” As already held by the courts, an opinion of an expert cannot be relied upon unless the expert is examined. Examination of an expert includes cross-examination of such an expert on his/ her experience, domain of knowledge and opinion. Does hot-tubbing take away the vital provision of examination of an expert, the absence of which might even vitiate the entire opinion? Although hot-tubbing deviates from the old-fashioned examination and cross examination of an expert witness, it does not entirely exclude examination of the experts. As per sub-rules d) and e) of rule 6 of the amended Delhi High Court rules, parties/counsels are allowed to put questions to expert witnesses and thus, it can be safely said that hottubbing is not contrary to the law relating to examination of witnesses. Hot-tubbing in India is in nascent stage and the jurisprudence would evolve with time. It will not be a surprise if it might garner more praise in times to come, especially in the matters that involve issues of highly technical nature such as patents.
Can the court put questions to the experts at the time of hearing? Apart from the introduction of amended rule 6, the procedure of hot-tubbing as outlined in the amended Delhi High Court Rules nowhere mentions that the Court can also put questions 38 IPPro
to the experts. However, it does not mean that that the judges will only be silent observers. Even though rules on hot-tubbing don’t provide so, various other provisions of law empower the judges to put questions to party. Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, gives power to judges to put any question to parties or witnesses in any form they please in order to discover or obtain proper proof of any relevant fact. Under order X rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, the court can orally examine any party appearing in person or present in the court. Further, section 311 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 also empowers the court to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.
Thus, in the view of the forgoing provisions it is apparent that though the hot-tubbing procedure does not explicitly mention that the court can also put questions to the parties or witnesses, the court is empowered to ask questions at any stage of the proceedings. Further, a situation may arise that parity of experts from both sides are not balanced either in number or in qualification. Would the court consider this disparity while forming an opinion on point of disagreements as envisaged in the amended Delhi High Court rules? Experts acquire special knowledge either by practice, observation or proper studies. An expert’s evidence is only an opinion and cannot take the place of any substantive evidence. The expert opinion must also be corroborated by direct or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, an opinion corroborated with other evidence would have more weightage than the qualification or number of experts produced by a party.
Conclusion The hot-tubbing procedure of expert examination has been identified as an alternative to sequential examination of expert witnesses, which might be flawed due to inherent susceptibility to biasness. Hot-tubbing would certainly help in eliminating bias of experts and would certainly increase comprehension of judges on complex technical issues. With increasing popularity of hot-tubbing around the globe, we believe that hot-tubbing in the Indian judicial system would also help in achieving its intended goal of reducing time, cost and stress involved in complex litigation. Albeit, not until it has been implemented in few cases. www.ippromagazine.com
Domain Names • Feature
Domain names: challenge or asset? Nathalie Dreyfus of Dreyfus & associĂŠs discusses how to ensure domain names remain an asset
WWW.
WWW.
Domain names have become essential for companies as the gateway to a business. Over the years, domain names registrations have constantly increased, reaching a growth of 3.5 percent in 2018. Besides, the sales and purchases of the domain name market shows that there is a steady increase in the price of domain names as companies are ready to invest into domain names related to their product names and trademarks. 40 IPPro
www.ippromagazine.com
At the same time, domain names can also be a risk factor for companies. There are many risks associated with domain names, which can represent financial loss for companies, such as phishing campaigns, fraud and identity theft. According to a PriceWaterHouse report, intellectual property is one of the top three business risk factors, with domain names being one of IP related risks. Some 20 percent of customers do not repurchase from a business that was the victim of a cyber attack. Therefore, businesses that want to attract and retain customers should demonstrate that they are taking all the necessary security measures to protect their domain names. Many countries have adopted legislation, including France and the US, which require businesses to put in place risk mapping as well as a risk management plan. With this legal obligation, companies should be able to react quickly to prevent infringements relating to domain names in order to avoid the charge of negligence. Cyber attacks affect domain names and, as a result, companies. Generally, cyber attacks aim to recover data by using the company’s domain name or email addresses associated to it. Malicious third parties can buy domain names that are available for sale and that look alike to a company’s name or trademark. By doing so, scammers aim to attract the customers of the related company, and mislead them for financial purposes. There are different types of these attacks. For example, homgraph domain names attacks consist of using non-Latin letters that resemble Latin characters to replicate a domain name related to a trademark or a company. The difference is not very visible for laptop and tablet users, and the look alike domains point to fake look alike websites. Moreover, there is also an emergence of phishing websites linked to social media network pages offering fake contests and sweepstakes. A recent example of the impact of a business that fell victim to a cyber attack is the Vinci Group. A fake press release sent through a mass email campaign associated with the domain name, vinci.group, led to the collapse of Vinci Group’s share prices. This example emphasises that cyber attacks can lead to financial loss for companies. Regarding the settlement of domain names disputes, they are, most of the time, settled through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures such as the UDRP. ADR procedures are on the rise for several reasons. They allow trademark owners to obtain domain name transfer for a small fee. ADR procedures take into account the international aspect of these disputes and the difficulties that arise in execution of court decisions. Moreover, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that came into force in May 41 IPPro
2018, ADR cases tend to increase. GDPR has introduced the anonymisation of WHOIS, thus, the personal information of a domain name owner is no longer available. As a result, it is now almost impossible to know if the domain name owner has rights to a disputed domain name. It is also no longer possible to simply request to the domain name owner the transfer of the disputed domain name. It is now difficult to prove that an entity has registered multiple domain names with the anonymisation of the WHOIS database, which leads to a surge of ADR procedures. In view of the growing importance of domain names, new systems must be designed regarding domain names resolution. For instance, some registries have already established procedures for lifting anonymity. As domain names are a valuable business asset, it is necessary to put in place measures to protect them from related risks. First, it is important to map the risks related to domain names because once they are identified it is easier to take actions to prevent them. In order to know which threats are more important to fight, companies should classify domain names risks depending on the company and its trademarks. For instance, domain names resolving to so-called ‘parking websites’ may be important to fight for well-known trademarks, whereas it may not be a priority for some trademarks. In addition, it is necessary to put in place active domain names monitoring strategies. For valuable business’ trademarks, a 24/7 domain name monitoring is recommended in order to immediately detect suspicious domain names. At Dreyfus, we offer a domain name monitoring system in order to react quickly before it becomes an issue. Finally, it is recommended for businesses to subscribe to a cyber-insurance for business in order to get compensation in case of cyber attack.
Nathalie Dreyfus
Founder Dreyfus
www.ippromagazine.com
Apiguide/shutterstock
Let your cash flow: the challenges of IP payments in China, the Middle East and Japan Justin Simpson of Billtrader explains how the platform can help those who want to avoid unnecessary charges when moving money around the world The Billtrader team recently exhibited at the International Trademark Association (INTA) 2019 Annual Conference in Boston. As the only provider of payment services for IP professionals, we heard lots of stories about the challenges intellectual property firms face moving money around the world. If you’ve ever had trouble being paid by an associate in China, ever had your bank refuse to send funds to your colleagues in the Middle East, or been surprised at the size of the bank fees required to pay a $100 invoice, read on. You’re not alone.
Japan While you’ll never hear a peep of complaint from your Japanese colleagues, spare a sympathetic ear for them. Each 43 IPPro
time they receive a payment into their bank account from a foreign associate, their bank takes out JPY 4,000 (about $50). Griffith Hack, one of Billtrader’s larger Australian clients, solves this problem by paying their Japanese associates via Billtrader. Griffith Hack pays an account in Australia. Billtrader does the banking conversion and sends the funds to our subsidiary in Japan, which then makes individual local payments to the Japanese agents. Griffith Hack’s colleagues in Japan are happy because they get 100 percent of the amount they billed (not JPY 4,000 less) and they even get individual payments for each invoice, making bank reconciliation a breeze. Griffith Hack is happy because they didn’t have to pay international wiring fees, nor did they have to spend the time individually setting up and authorising each payment. www.ippromagazine.com
They just ‘traded’ 50 Japanese bills on the Billtrader platform and made a single payment to Billtrader’s Australian account.
Middle East You and I know that there are a number of very highly reputable and large IP firms in the Middle East. Within the IP industry, the level of respect and trust for those firms is very high. However, go to your bank and say ‘I’d like to send €2,000 to a law firm Lebanon’ and you’ll get some raised eyebrows. One client recently came to Billtrader saying that his bank simply refused to send funds to the Middle East because of all the money laundering paperwork they had to go through. Billtrader happily took on the bills for that large firm and paid them, going through the necessary anti money laundering paperwork with our bank. Now the Middle Eastern agent is happy because they are finally getting paid and the Billtrader client can relax knowing he can send further instructions to his Middle East colleague, knowing they won’t refuse his business and miss a critical deadline due to lack of payment.
China When we asked INTA attendees about payment headaches, the most common cause of complaint was China. The amount of paperwork required to get money in and out of China sounded exhausting. Some US firms doing a lot of litigation on behalf of large Chinese companies were waiting many months for payments to arrive. With staff waiting to get paid, the cash flow impact was significant. Fortunately for Billtrader, we have a wholly owned subsidiary in China and a very large IP firm (AFD China) as a key investor. With its help, we are able to issue VAT receipts to Chinese IP firms so they are able to pay our Chinese subsidiary. We convert the funds into US Dollars, and are able to pay our US clients via a local US transfer from our bank account in New York.
US When I started Billtrader I didn’t think American IP firms would be interested in using us, as the US dollar is used by firms around the world as a common currency. The currency exchange fluctuations many firms face aren’t experienced by Americans because of the predominance of the use of US dollars. We have, however, received a great deal of interest from US firms due to the fact that the US banking system is so widely distributed. In Australia, the number of institutions calling themselves a ‘bank’ is less than 10, in America that number exceeds 5,800 and was as high as 18,000 thirty years ago. With the enormous local banking market in the US, many of the smaller local banks don’t have great international transfer facilities. We’ve heard of some firms having to physically go to their local bank to make a transfer. We repeatedly heard of international wiring charges of between $35 and $50 per payment. With Billtrader, our network of bank accounts spanning 45 countries allows our US clients to pay us locally in US dollars (via a cheap or free ACH payment). We then distribute the funds in bulk to our bank accounts around the world, before making individual local payments to IP firms incountry. By using Billtrader, American IP firms are bypassing the large international bank fees and their foreign agents are receiving more of the money they send.Whether your money is on a slow boat from China or stuck in transit on its way to the Middle East, you should take a look at how Billtrader can let your cash flow.
The flow the other way is similar. When our clients around the world want to pay their Chinese colleagues, they just make a local payment in their home currency into a local bank account. We send the funds to Billtrader’s bank account in China and then distribute local payments to the Chinese IP firms, receiving VAT receipts as required. The process of setting up a Chinese subsidiary, opening a bank account and registering with the tax authorities was excruciatingly slow and expensive. But we now have a payment facility that we can share with the IP world.
Justin Simpson
Founder Billtrader
>Bank Fees >Data Entry >Currency Risk IP firms waste thousands in bank fees and currency costs IP firms lose many thousands of dollars each year paying and being paid by their foreign agents, and up to a third of their annual revenue is tied up in unpaid bills. Billtrader solves these age-old problems by:
Paying you instantly We give you instant credit for any bill you’re owed. You can use that credit to pay any foreign agent’s bill, thus freeing up your cash.
Cutting bank fees We have bank accounts around the world, so we pay locally, without bank fees for you or your agents.
Reducing staff costs We automate the process of paying your foreign agents, reducing the need for low-level data entry staff. Lower staff costs mean higher firm profits.
Get in touch with us at sales@billtrader.com to schedule an obligation-free demo of our innovative platform today.
www.billtrader.com
|
sales@billtrader.com