nl20 mitartikel.ps, page 1-16 @ normalize ( nl20 mit ... · patent application and which could be...

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR THE PROTECTION

OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG

FÜR DEN SCHUTZ

DES GEISTIGEN EIGENTUMS

EDITORIAL

When you hold this Newsletter edition in your hands, it is

already mid-year 2006 and only four more month until the

Congress in Gothenburg in October will begin. Therefore

this edition focuses on the Congress and you will find va-

rious articles on the scientific programme and the north-

ern, especially the Gothenburg, culture. One article in par-

ticular shows you the unique and outstanding points of

Gothenburg, may this be the Viking history or culinary arts

as the very special sea food of the region. We hope, of

course, that these articles will please you and tempt you

into joining us for unique scientific and northern experi-

ences at the 40th Congress of AIPPI. We would be very

happy to welcome many of you in Gothenburg in October this year.

Many interesting and important developments have taken place this spring. One of the most chal-

lenging was the Diplomatic Conference of WIPO concerning the Adoption of a revised Trade-

mark Law Treaty which has taken place from March 13 to 31, 2006. You will find a Report in this

Newsletter edition and for a more extensive version we would like you to visit our Website:

www.aippi.org. Reports of further meetings, among them a much discussed Informal Session con-

cerning the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) are also part of this edition.

We are very happy to be able to include two Reviews of meetings of our National and Regional

Groups. As always, the activities of the Groups are much appreciated and the Reviews show how

much the Members and also the Guests of such meetings enjoy discussion and the possibility to

get first-hand information. We wish to encourage all Groups to undertake such meetings and to

build an active membership which brings into the Association the many various aspects of the IP

world.

To continue with our Series on National Groups, we include another Report this time of a South-

American Group. We hope to show you the differences and varieties of our Groups and their

working methods, and at the same time their similarities in their efforts and enthusiams for

AIPPI.

As always we would be more than pleased to receive your feedback on our activities and our

Newsletter.

Vincenzo M. Pedrazzini

Secretary General

ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE

POUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA PROPRIETE INTELLECTUEL

AIPPIGeneral SecretariatTödistrasse 16CH-8027 ZurichSwitzerlandTel. + 41 - 44 - 280 58 80Fax + 41 - 44 - 280 58 [email protected]

June , 2006

CONTENTS

2 Congress Gothenburg: Working

Committees

Jochen Bühling

4 Congress Gothenburg: Workshops

Luis-Alfonso Durán

8 Congress Gothenburg: Welcome to the

homeland of the Vikings!

Ann-Charlotte Söderlund

10 Report of the Diplomatic Conference

for a revised TLT

Regina Quek

11 Report of the WIPO SCP Informal

Session

Alain Gallochat

12 Review of WIPO’s 9th Session of the

GRTKF

Konrad Becker

13 Review of the Symposium of the

Spanish Group

Marcelino Curell Aguilá

14 Report of the Annual General meeting

of the Portuguese Group

João Pereira da Cruz

15 The Chilean Group

Andrés Melossi

16 Overview of Working and Special

Committees

NEWSLETTER no 20 2 06

June 2006

Jochen Bühling

Congress Gothenburg:Working Committees

Jochen BühlingDeputy Reporter General

ties and their liability regarding infringe-

ment, in particular the question whether the

amendments will have an effect ex tunc or ex

nunc, whether it will be erga omnes and

whether third parties can be held liable for

infringing a patent whose claims have been

amended after grant.

Q191 considers specific questions of the re-

lationship of trademarks and geographical

indications. AIPPI has in the past con-

ducted several studies which touched upon

this topic. In particular the Resolution

Q118 adopted in Copenhagen 1994 ("Geo-

graphical Indications") contained a general

statement regarding the conflict of trade-

marks and geographical indications. How-

ever, details of this relationship were never

discussed in depth. This will be the task of

Q191.

Problems occur in particular when trade-

marks and geographical indications which

are identical or confusingly similar come

into conflict with each other. One has to

take into consideration the fundamental

difference between those two regimes.

Whereas trademarks on the one hand serve

as an exclusive right for their owner to dis-

tinguish goods or services from those of

other companies, geographical indications

must be open for use by everyone whose

products fulfil the requirements for that

specific indication, for instance geographi-

cal origin, a specific method of producing or

the like. Although both can exist in parallel,

there are nevertheless conflicts to solve.

This topic has become even more relevant

since a WTO panel report of March 15,

2005 held that the EC Regulation 2081/92

on the protection of geographical indica-

tions and designations of origin for agricul-

tural products and foodstuffs which provides

for a co-existence of an older trademark and a

younger geographical indication is not in full

conformity with Art. 16 TRIPS. The com-

NEWSLETTER no20 2 06 www.aippi.org

Q189 deals with the conditions under

which patent claims can be amended after

the patent has been granted and with the

consequences of such amendments. The

patent claims play an important role – if not

the most important role in determining the

scope of protection of a granted patent.

Quite frequently, the need occurs for the

patentee to amend the claims even after the

grant of the patent. This will mostly be the

case when new prior art is found which was

not considered in the examination of the

patent application and which could be held

against the patent as either novelty destroy-

ing or denying the inventive step (non-obvi-

ousness).

In such a situation various interests will

have to be balanced. On the one hand, the

patentee is entitled to be awarded a patent

for his invention. On the other hand, third

parties and the public have to have as much

legal certainty as possible in order to deter-

mine whether their own technical solutions

are covered by the patent or not.

The latest developments in connection with

the Revision of the EPC in Europe and pro-

posals for the amendment of the US law

have again triggered the interest in post-

grant amendments of patent claims.

The focus of Q189 will be on the substan-

tive conditions for the amendments of

claims rather than on procedural aspects.

Amendments may be desirable in various

contexts, such as during opposition pro-

ceedings, revocation actions or as a response

to counterclaims in infringement actions.

One of the main aspects will be how

amendments can be achieved, e.g. by dele-

ting or combining granted claims and sub-

claims, adding subject-matter from the de-

scription or drafting completely new claims.

Another important aspect are the conse-

quences of such amendments for third par-

2

The Working Programme for

the Gothenburg Congress tries

to comprise topics which cover

the whole range of Intellectual

Property law. We will therefore

again have a topic of patent

law (Q189 – Amendment of

Patent Claims after Grant), a

trademark law topic (Q191 –

Relationship between Trade-

marks and Geographical Indi-

cations) and two topics of a

more general character (Q190

– Contracts regarding Intellec-

tual Property Rights and Q192

– Acquiescence to Infringement

of Intellectual Property Rights).

www.aippi.org

June 2006

vide security for financial obligations. The

owner of an IP right may want to obtain a

mortgage or to use the IP right by way of a

charge of pledge. Q190 will investigate

what the substantive requirements are and

which formalities have to be met.

Bankruptcy and insolvency create a danger

not only for the IP owner but also for the

partner of a contract regarding IP rights.

The interplay between bankruptcy and in-

solvency law and IP law is often not clear. In

this regard, Q190 will not only search for

information about the existing status in the

various countries but also try to set up

guidelines on how IP rights and contracts

regarding IP rights should or should not be

affected in these situations by insolvency or

bankruptcy proceedings either on the side of

the licensor or of the licensee.

The second general topic on the Working

Programme for Gothenburg concerns situa-

tions in which IP rights are used without

knowledge and permission of their owners.

Q192 will investigate and evaluate the con-

sequences of such a use over a certain period

of time without any reaction from the IP

owner.

There may be various reasons for not acting

immediately. Apart from a lack of know-

ledge of the infringer the IP right holder

may deliberately choose to refrain from ta-

king actions for a certain time. He may find

the risk of legal actions too high. He may

also under certain conditions find it advan-

tageous to tolerate a use of his IP right even

when it is unlawful, since this might make

his own right more visible and more known

to the public.

This leads to situations in which the in-

fringer faces economic and other business

consequences of this behaviour which might

not have occurred otherwise if the owner of

plex situation and the practical effects re-

sulting from this report will have to be con-

sidered in the realm of Q191.

This question will investigate the scope of

protection of geographical indications and

their effects on trademark protection.

Among others it will be evaluated whether

an existing geographical indication can

serve as a legal bar to trademark protection.

On the other hand, a Resolution of Q191

will also deal with how conflicts between

trademarks and geographical indications are

resolved, which principles apply and which

criteria have to be taken into account.

Q190 considers contracts regarding IP

rights, such as assignments, licenses and se-

curity interests and the effect on third par-

ties. The significance of license agreements

can be seen from the fact that the amount of

royalties deriving from patent licenses has

risen by a factor of more than 30 in the past

20 years. Nevertheless, contracts of this

kind are not at all or not very specifically

regulated by statutes in many countries. On

the other hand, the economic factor of IP

rights is closely linked to bankruptcy and

insolvency of businesses. One of the goals of

Q190 is therefore to analyse which effects

those proceedings may have on IP rights

and how external factors could or should af-

fect contracts regarding IP rights.

Contracts regarding IP rights may be of dif-

ferent character. This involves not only

agreements on the assignment of IP rights,

but also license agreements as mentioned

above. In this context, questions arise about

the rights conferred by a license and how

the license is affected e.g. by a revocation or

the nullification of the IP right.

IP rights will in many cases form the eco-

nomic basis of a company. There the ques-

tion arises whether they can be used to pro-

the IP right had not tolerated the infringe-

ment. Although his actions will in most

cases nevertheless be considered unlawful,

the question arises whether the IP owner is

still entitled to pursue the rights conferred

by the IP right against the infringer. The

acquiescence (tolerance) may be construed

as a bar for exercising such rights.

Q192 will examine the current situation in

the various countries as to which rules apply

to the different IP rights and the conditions

under which a tolerance can lead to rights of

the infringer. This relates in particular to

the duration of tolerance and to the good or

bad faith of the infringer. Another aspect is

the degree of knowledge of the IP owner

which is required in order to establish a to-

lerance on his part. Finally, it will be impor-

tant to find out details about the effect of

the tolerance regarding the scope of acts the

infringer may continue in the future, in-

cluding the nature of the acts, modifications

of the product itself and limits thereto.

The Working Programme for Gothenburg

is directed to questions which are both of

general interest and related to timely topics.

The Group Reports and the work of the

Working Committees will result in valuable

sources of reference and will undoubtedly

provide a profound basis for substantial dis-

cussions and Resolutions to be adopted in

Gothenburg. ●

NEWSLETTER no20 2 06

3

June 2006

Luis-Alfonso Durán

Congress Gothenburg:Workshops

Luis-Alfonso DuránReporter General

For Workshops, the topics are also selected

taking into consideration either the interest

in updating the audience on a topic of prac-

tical importance that has not recently been

dealt with by AIPPI, discussing a new topic

or presenting a controversial subject from

different angles.

The Workshops in Gothenburg will deal

with the following subjects:

I. Issues affecting trademarks for pharma-

ceutical products.

It is obvious that trademarks in the pharma-

ceutical field experience a problem that is

very specific and different from those in

other fields.

On the one hand, the selling of pharmaceu-

tical products is subject to strict regulation

by governments who exercise a high degree

of control on the commercialisation of

pharmaceuticals, both due to the social im-

portance of products related to healthcare,

and due to the fact that in many countries a

substantial part of the costs is paid through

the governments, who collect compulsory

contributions from taxpayers and afterwards

payback pharmaceuticals to those tax pay-

ers.

On the other hand, pharmaceuticals have

non-proprietary names which are generic

designations established by the World

Health Organisation. These non-propri-

etary names are used in addition to trade-

marks and give rise to the need to be distin-

guished.

Another differential aspect of pharmaceuti-

cals is that before entering the market, the

products and their trademarks have to un-

dergo governmental authorisation that of-

ten takes some time. The regulatory regime

of these products, which includes the fixing

of the sale price, gives rise to problems of


In AIPPI Congresses, the Working Pro-

gramme consists of a combination of topics

that are dealt with under two different

methodologies. There are the so-called

Working Questions that follow the tradi-

tional working methods of AIPPI, i.e.

Working Guidelines, Group Reports, Sum-

mary Reports, discussion at Working Com-

mittee meetings and Plenary Sessions and

Resolutions adopted by the Executive Com-

mittee. The number of topics that can be

dealt with as Working Questions is neces-

sarily limited to four at Congresses. You

will find in this issue an article by the

Deputy Reporter General, Jochen Bühling,

concerning the four very interesting Wor-

king Questions that will be discussed at our

next AIPPI Congress.

In addition to these Working Questions, at

the Congress in Gothenburg, AIPPI will

present 10 additional topics that will be

treated under the format of Workshops.

Here, the topics are presented by a panel of

expert speakers who will approach each

topic from a different perspective. After the

presentations, the moderator of the session

will open a discussion between the panel,

and also as with those in attendance. A re-

port with the conclusions of the Workshops

will serve AIPPI in considering whether the

topic is worthy of further study.

This year for the first time, there will be two

parallel streams of Workshop sessions, that

will also run in parallel with the Working

Questions Plenary Sessions, thus giving the

Congress participants the possibility of

choosing between 3 different events. The

selection of the topics for these 3 parallel

sessions has been made in order to offer 3

subjects of a different nature, giving every

Congress participant a topic of interest ta-

king into consideration the specialisation

that nowadays characterises IP specialists.

4

The Gothenburg Congress Centre: Svenska Massan

www.aippi.org

June 2006

challenge by creating pandemics. This re-

quires making great investments in research

in order to achieve new inventions in the

medical field, including medical treatments.

However, traditionally, patent protection

for some of these inventions, such as me-

dical treatments has historically been very

problematic, considering that the superior

right for a patient to be treated cannot be

objected on the grounds of exclusive patent

rights.

This has led to the establishment of patent

limitations to these inventions which are

treated differently in different countries.

The three major economic areas of the

world, i.e. US, Japan and Europe, treat

them differently. In 2007, a reform of the

European Patent Convention will come

into force that has changed the concept of

considering that medical treatments are not

inventions to now consider them as un-

parallel importations, repackaging, etc. In

addition, the implications of the risk of con-

fusion of pharmaceutical trademarks in

terms of human health has given rise to dif-

ferent interpretations to the form of con-

ducting the examination of new marks for

registration throughout the world.

These and other aspects of pharmaceutical

trademarks will be discussed in the Work-

shops by experts from different countries.

II. IP Due Diligence.

Intangible valuation is always a challenge.

In the case of IP, the problem is even more

complex given the fact that the existing

methodology gives rise to a plurality of ways

of calculating the value of a patent or trade-

mark. The subjectivity element plays a very

important role and to make an appropriate

valuation, a combination of knowledge in

very different fields is necessary, i.e. eco-

nomics, technology involved, etc.

However, since the number of mergers and

acquisitions is constantly increasing, it is

necessary to constantly increase IP dili-

gence. This Workshop, which will have an

international panel of specialists, will ex-

plain what the current practice is and will do

so with the help of a case study on a com-

pany acquisition.

III. Patents and medical treatment

(patentability, limitations of effects, pub-

lic impact, effects on production of patient

specific drugs, etc.).

Inventions relating to medical treatment are

very important for improving life for human

beings, achieving not only the prolonging of

people's lives but also doing so whilst main-

taining a reasonable quality of life. On the

other hand, there are illnesses in the world

that affect a lot of people and there are not

yet sufficient remedies. Finally, new dis-

eases appear constantly and constitute a real

patentable inventions. Japan is preparing

new laws for these inventions as well. An

expert international panel will refer to the

international protection of these types of in-

ventions.

IV. Open Source and IP Rights: 20 years

of experience.

One of the fields of technology where the

economy has suffered a most dramatic

transformation has been in the software in-

dustry. Nowadays, the world would not be

the same without software. It is needed not

only in industry but also in people's lives.

We need software to work in our companies

(computers, machinery, etc.), to operate our

airports and train stations, to speak using

our cell phones, to run hospital machinery

which diagnoses our diseases, etc.

However, there is a generally hostile atti-

tude in the public opinion that software

does not deserve patent protection. The last


5

Copyright by Kjell Holmner

The fish market hall (called Feskekörka in Swedish) with a special tourist attraction: the Paddan boats

experience in Europe, where the European

Parliament rejected a very limited harmoni-

sation of computer implemented inven-

tions, is only one example of the amount of

NGOs who are radically against extending

patent protection to software.

The open source movement, proposing al-

ternative solutions of software, where code

words are accessible to users, seemed to of-

fer a solution making software accessible to

users. However, the complexity of software

makes it necessary in practice for software

products to be maintained and even open

source products are not as freely available as

it seems.

Software companies, whose protected and

open source software has been combined,

have adopted a mixture of solutions over the

last few years. The panel will include ex-

perts in both areas who will present their

points of view.

V. The role of survey evidence in trade

mark proceedings and disputes.

The importance of survey evidence has

grown at a pace with the increase of the use

of non-conventional marks and the enlarged

protection given to well-known or reputed

trademarks.

However, the preparation and conducting

of survey evidence is of fundamental impor-

tance since afterwards Trademark Offices

and Courts will interpret the results diffe-

rently in light of how the evidence has been

conducted. Moreover, different countries

have different standards and there is an ab-

solute lack of harmonisation.

The panel of this Workshop will address

these issues, explaining the situation in dif-

ferent parts of the world.

June 2006

An expert panel consisting of Judges, patent

office members, lawyers and patent attor-

neys should be useful for addressing this is-

sue.

VII. Effective use of customs measures

against importation of counterfeited

goods.

Counterfeiting is a plague for the economy

which is increasing worldwide. Globalisa-

tion has helped this phenomenon reach all

countries of the world.

Eventhough governments worldwide have

taken notice and increased awareness of the

problem and have adopted more sophisti-

cated measures to fight against counterfei-

ting, counterfeiters at the same time have

created more sophisticated ways in which to

counterfeit.

The panel will explain what the means of

fighting against counterfeiting are in vari-

ous parts of the world and what proposals

are on the table to try to cope with the seri-

ous growth of this phenomenon.


VI. Technical expertise in patent litiga-

tion - A necessity for a fair trial.

Patents are legal instruments with a techni-

cal content. This makes it difficult to assess

the validity, scope, extent of protection and

infringement when only addressing the le-

gal component of patents.

Patent litigation is conducted by lawyers

who present the case in front of judges, all

of whom usually only have a legal back-

ground.

Some countries have introduced panels of

judges where some have a legal and others a

technical background. Lawyers also either

have a technical background themselves or

deal with the case in combination with

patent attorneys, who provide the technical

support.

AIPPI under Q136 adopted a Resolution in

1998 on this issue, but given the practical

importance of this issue for patent enforce-

ment, it has been considered that a discus-

sion would be useful for AIPPI members.

6

Harbour Scene in Gothenburg Copyright by Göran Assner

www.aippi.org

June 2006

IX. The enlargement of the EU - harmo-

nization of trade marks - opportunities

and risks for Community Trademarks.

May 1, 2004 was a very important date in

Europe, since it signalled the enlargement

of the EU from 15 to 25 Member States,

with many of the 10 new Member States

belonging to the former socialist Eastern

block that developed in Europe after the

2nd World War.

Among other aspects, this enlargement has

had a very important impact on the regula-

tion of trademarks in the EU, since before

this Enlargement, the Community trade-

mark had been established in 1996.

The Enlargement gave rise to the need to

adopt a particular formula to integrate the

Community trademark in the new enlarged

EU, and to establish compromises for exis-

ting rights.

The panel will explain what these solutions

are and how they have been put into prac-

tice, after more than 2 years of experience.

X. Duration of patent protection: Does

one size fit all?

This is a futuristic topic, but one that de-

rives from the fact that economic needs are

not the same in all fields of technology and

that the degree of development of countries

is not the same.

Does patent protection need to be given

with the same duration independently of

the field of technology or the degree of de-

velopment of countries?

For example, pharmaceuticals need a sub-

stantial period of time until they can be

placed on the market. Accordingly, the ef-

fective period of exclusivity is shorter than

other products that can be marketed imme-

diately.

VIII. The impact of the new economic or-

der on the WTO on economic develop-

ment and on IP policy and best practices.

The debate between the advantages of IP

for economic development has been on the

table since the '70s.

However, the adoption of TRIPS in 1995

was seen by some developing countries as an

attempt by developed countries to impose

minimum standards of IP protection for

their own benefit in exchange for allowing

developing countries to sell their agricul-

tural goods to the developed world.

This has developed the idea in developing

countries that IP protection only benefits

developed countries.

However, there is a direct link between IP

protection and the development of coun-

tries. Without adequate IP protection many

investments would not be made in develo-

ping countries and the transfer of techno-

logy that licensing of IP rights produces in

developing countries is the basis for the de-

velopment of these countries.

Logically, IP alone will not suffice to make

a developing country grow, but some go-

vernments of these countries seem to con-

centrate the responsibility of their problems

in this area.

This has led to very unhappy situations in

WIPO and WTO where some countries are

preventing an improvement in the harmo-

nisation of IP law.

The panel of experts will refer to this phe-

nomenon and will hopefully permit the ex-

change of views of participants from all re-

gions of the world.

Other products have such a short lifecycle

that sometimes they are off the market even

before the patent is granted.

On the other hand, some developing coun-

tries feel that, for their economies, patent

protection, at least in some technical fields,

should be shortened.

The panel speakers will develop these prob-

lems and will present proposals for discus-

sion.

As you will see, the topics for discussion are

very interesting, challenging and stimula-

ting. I hope they will attract a lot of AIPPI

members who will also benefit from a few

days of high level discussion where they will

be able to learn a lot and contribute with

their knowledge for the benefit of all. ●


7

Copyright by Kjell Holmner

The statue of Poseidon by the famous Swedish sculp-tor Carl Milles

June 2006

Ann-Charlotte Söderlund

Congress Gothenburg:Welcome to the homeland

of the Vikings!

Ann-Charlotte SöderlundMember Organising Committee

went to Jerusalem and possibly also to

Alexandria. Their activities left traces for

eternity. Over 900 of the most common

English words come from the Vikings. Sky,

skin, scrape, skirt, husband (husbonde) and

window (vindue) are some examples. The

word brand does also come from the

Vikings language, originally "brandr",

meaning marked by the owner or maker of

an item.

There are over 600 village names in Eng-

land, which can be directly related to the

Vikings (Grimsby, Thoresby, Brimtoft,

Langtoft and so on). In the North East of

England the Nordic languages were spoken

until as late as the 12th century, on the Isle

of Man until the middle of the 15th cen-

tury.

Foreigners have never stopped wondering

about and being fascinated by the Vikings -

and that is the same for us.

Another unique property of this place is the

food! A great surprise for many is that this

city, the home of Volvo cars and trucks and

the SKF ball bearings on the west coast of

Sweden, can offer an extensive list of some

of the best restaurants in northern Europe.

The chefs in Gothenburg are in fact some of

the most skilled in the world, especially

when it comes to seafood.

Gothenburg is very lucky to be located on a

shore with the best waters a chef can dream

of for catching perfect seafood, like cod,

turbot, prawns and lobster. Why is the qua-

lity of the water so perfect on the Swedish

west coast? Well, unlike the not so salty wa-

ter in the Baltic Sea on the opposite side of

Sweden - where Stockholm is located - the

west coast water provides the perfect ba-

lance of salt, nutritive substance and tem-

perature for a lobster to grow at an ideal

pace.


At the beginning of October this year

AIPPI will gather in Gothenburg, Sweden.

What has this place on earth got to offer its

visitors?

Every country's, every city's dream is to own

one of the big tourist attractions in the

world. Everybody is constantly working to

develop and present something unique con-

nected with an interesting history to attract

the tourists and their money.

The ideal "product" is something everlas-

ting which also builds a genuine identity

with historic dimensions, where anyone

who wants to investigate the background

will find that the attraction in question is

not yet another copy of the real thing. And

what have we here in the North got to offer

of unique interest apart from our clean,

crisp nature, lots of forest and space?

One unique property is the history of the

Vikings! A history shared by Sweden, Nor-

way, Denmark and Iceland, but also a his-

tory shared by many of the countries the

Vikings visited and stayed: England, Ire-

land, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey and not

to forget Russia and North America!

Yes, the area covered by the Vikings jour-

neys was great indeed! Vikings founded

kingdoms in Russia and built trade stations

along the rivers all the way down to the

Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. They went

to Constantinople and Baghdad, Gorgon

and Chorezm. They even came into contact

with Byzantium and they formed a feared

elite regiment for the East Roman Em-

peror, a guard that existed for some hundred

years. They conquered London, besieged

Lisbon, burnt Santiago, assaulted Seville,

attacked Mallorca, and sold European slaves

in North Africa. They terrorized Paris (on

numerous occasions) and burnt Hamburg

and many other German cities. They even

8

The Viking map

Viking Stamps

www.aippi.org

June 2006

Gothenburg area - why don't go to the pic-

turesque "Käringön" ("Women's Island"),

the most western fishing port of Sweden,

and fish your own lobster that will be served

at the very typical restaurant of the island in

the evening. Käringön is otherwise a pre-

ferred place for sailors to visit and even if it

is cloudy on the mainland, the sun always

seems to shine on Käringön!

As for fish, the Gothenburg recommenda-

tions is a simply boiled halibut or cod with

some melted butter and newly grind horse-

radish - possibly with a twist of lemon. Or

why don't enjoy a piece of smoked salmon,

or "gravad" salmon, or boiled salmon, or …

just in the taste you like it!

But not only the food will make a stay in

Gothenburg a memory for life. The inhabi-

tants of Gothenburg are known to be very

friendly and open to foreigners - probably a

heritage from the travelling around Vikings.

They like to make sure that your stay in

Gothenburg is pleasant and will certainly

provide some "inside tips" about the city be-

sides the interesting places found in the ex-

cursion programme of the Congress.

You will probably therefore hear about the

Avenue, our own little Champs Elysée, that

runs in the centre of Gothenburg with

plenty of shops and restaurants whereof

one, "Brasserie Lipp", will serve as an

AIPPI meeting point during the Congress.

Or the Maritime Museum down in the har-

bour of Gothenburg - which by the way is

Northern Europe's larges harbour - where

you can enter a submarine, a war ship and

other famous ships. For those interested in

design, there is the Röhsska Museum and for

those interested in antiquities a stroll in the

quarters of Haga will certainly satisfy that in-

terest where the antique shops are concen-

trated (don't bring too much home even if it

is at a good price, please!).

This environment for fish and people to live

comfortably on this spot of the world map is

made possible by the Gulf Stream, a strong

current which carries warm water from the

Mexican Gulf all the way over the Atlantic

Ocean to the Swedish west cost. Many days

and nights from June to September it even

provides us with a Mediterranean climate

and in middle of the summer the tempera-

ture in the sea can even exceed 25C. If we

are lucky this year, we may even have what

we call an "Indian Summer" in the begin-

ning of October with warm, sunny days.

And where and how does one enjoy the fan-

tastic fish and seafood in Gothenburg? One

of my favourites is to enjoy an Open Prawn

Sandwich during lunchtime on the quay

outside "Fiskekôrkan" - our famous fish

market. The shrimps have been landed from

the ship early the same morning, sold on the

traditional auction and just a few hours

thereafter, served extremely fresh on a

newly baked bread with some mayonnaise,

egg and lettuce.

Another - of course - fantastic dish is the

famous Bohüslän lobster. In October, the

season for fishing lobster has just started so

you will find our well tasting lobster in all

variations in most of the restaurants but the

best way to enjoy it is of course just simply

boiled with some lemon. The Bohüslän lob-

ster has the best taste that can ever be en-

joyed, having grown slowly in our cold wa-

ters so it will be a culinary experience! If you

have some extra days to spend in the

You may also be recommended to take the

bus - or car - to the island of Marstrand that

has been both Norwegian and Danish du-

ring the centuries when Sweden has lost a

battle or two. On Marstrand there is a fa-

mous fortress which, until just a couple of

years ago, was still used by the Swedish Mi-

litary. Marstrand was an important port and

a tax haven during centuries and it also has

the first synagogue built in Sweden.

Marstrand is nowadays known for sailing

and the finals in the Swedish Match Cup

and is one of my favourite places for a Sun-

day dinner and a stroll!

And for those who prefer to enjoy our na-

ture and the forests, there is a fantastic re-

serve just next to Gothenburg, "Delsjön"

where one can take short or long walks in

the forests and enjoy the lakes (you may

even get a glance of one of its lakes on the

journey from the airport). You may actually

also get a glimpse of a moose or a deer or a

badger or a ….! But if you want to see a lynx

or a wolf, I must invite you to my home 30

km north of Gothenburg in Kungälv where

they have recently been spotted! I am just

now only waiting for a bear to be sighted

and the feeling of living in the wilderness

will be complete!

Welcome to the Viking Gothenburg in Oc-

tober! ●


9

Typcial Swedish food

An Impression of the Island of Sevard

June 2006

Regina Quek

Report of WIPO’s DiplomaticConference for the Adoptionof a revised TLT, Singapore

March 13 to 31, 2006,

Regina QuekPresident of the Singapore National Group

After the discussions, Article 25 was

amended by retaining only the original Art.

25(1), i.e. Article 25: This Treaty may be re-

vised by a diplomatic conference. The convoca-

tion of any diplomatic conference shall be de-

cided by the Assembly. The Regulations under

the Treaty were adopted without substan-

tive amendment. In addition to the Treaty

and Regulations, the DC also adopted the

Resolution by the Diplomatic Conference

Supplementary to the Singapore Treaty on

the Law of Trademarks and the Regulations

thereunder. Some items to be noted are:

1. That the words "procedure before the

Office" in Article 1(cii) does not cover

judicial procedures under the legislation

of the Contracting Parties;

2. Articles 2 and 8 do not impose any

obligations on Contracting Parties to

register new types of marks as referred

to in Rule 3 (4),(5) and (6) of the Regu-

lations or to implement electronic filing

systems or other automation systems.

The DC also acknowledged the special si-

tuation and needs of LDCs and agreed that

they should be accorded special treatment

for the implementation of the Treaty as fol-

lows: LDCs will be the main beneficiaries

of technical assistance by the Contracting

Parties and WIPO. This includes assistance

in:

(i) establishing the legal framework for the

implementation of the Treaty,

(ii) information, education and awareness

raising as regards the impact of acceding

to the Treaty,

(iii)revising administrative practices and

procedures of national trademark regis-

tration authorities,

(iv) building up the necessary trained man-

power and facilities of the IP Offices,

including information and communica-

tion technology to effectively imple-

ment the Treaty and its Regulations. ●


It was amended to provide for the indi-

cations regarding "type of mark", "regis-

tration and publication in the standard

characters used by the Office" and

"color claim as a distinctive feature of

the mark" – as separate elements or in-

dications, for clarity that a Contracting

Party has the freedom to choose none,

one or more of the elements/indica-

tions.

2. Art. 4(1)(a) – (by proposal from the Chi-

nese Delegation) was amended to

include a provision that, (where applica-

ble), "the representative is to be admit-

ted to practice before the Office" –

which was intended to ensure the qua-

lity of trademark representation, and for

regulating the behavior thereof.

3. Art. 28(2) – was amended to provide that

the Treaty shall enter into force after 10

states (amended from 5) or intergovern-

mental organizations... have deposited

their instruments of ratification or ac-

cession.

There were extensive discussions as regards

Art. 25 which pertained to the revision of

the Treaty. Art. 25(1) provided for the revi-

sion of the Treaty by diplomatic conference.

Art. 25(2) et.al. provided for amendment by

the Assembly of Certain Provisions namely

Articles 23 and 24. These relate to the As-

sembly the International Bureau respec-

tively. The US delegation proposed

(amendment to Art. 25(2)) that the power

of amendment by the Assembly of the

Treaty be limited to Art. 23(2), and the de-

legation from Kyrgyzstan proposed that

such power be limited to Art.24. The dele-

gation from Iran proposed that Art.

25(1)(b) be amended to require a consensus

of Member States or four fifths of the votes

cast and Art. 25(2)(c) be amended by re-

quiring written notifications of acceptance

from "four fifths" of the Contracting Par-

ties, and the last sentence of Art. 25(1)(b)

also to be deleted.

10

The WIPO Diplomatic Confe-

rence for the Adoption of a Re-

vised Trademark Law Treaty was

held in Singapore from March

13 - 31, 2006 and culminated

in the adoption of the Singapore

Treaty on the Law of Trade-

marks (the "Treaty") on 27

March 2006. The Treaty was

opened for signature on 28

March 2006 and 42 states have

to date signed it. The Basic Pro-

posal for a Revised Trademark

Law Treaty was amended in the

course of the discussions and

some of the substantive amend-

ments are highlighted in this ar-

ticle:

1. Article 3(1)(a)(x) (xi) and

(xii) – (by proposal from the

Singapore Delegation) was

amended.

Full Report see www.aippi.org > Publi-cations & Services > Online publica-tions > Reports of Representatives atWIPO

www.aippi.org

June 2006

During the morning of the first day, some

NGOs (ATRIP, AIPPI, FICPI, AIPLA)

had the opportunity to take the floor; such

an opportunity never occurred afterwards.

AIPPI insisted again on the importance of a

step by step harmonization, FICPI had a

similar approach as well as AIPLA, for

which a failure in the present debate would

lead to possible negotiations among inte-

rested countries outside of WIPO.

Beyond that consensus, the gap between the

developing countries and the industrialized

ones increased dramatically. The two basic

positions which were presented and argued

clearly reflect such a gap:

- a common position (USA / Japan) was

supported by the European Union and a

number of developed countries: for

those countries the final goal was still to

have an harmonization treaty, the only

pragmatic way to get it being to harmo-

nize on a step by step basis, prioritizing

the following 4 issues (the "4 issues

list"):

- definition of prior art

- grace period

- novelty

- inventive step

- a position presented by Argentina, on

behalf of the group "Friends of Deve-

lopment" was strongly supported by

Brazil and by other countries being

members of such group, for whom a

treaty was not necessarily the goal to

reach, the future SCP work programme

having to stick on all the issues debated

at the Open Forum, such issues having

been negotiated beforehand as already

mentioned; finally, 9 issues were sup-

ported by the "Friends of Development"

(the "9 issues list"):

- development and policy space for fle-

xibilities

- exclusions from patentability

- exceptions to patent rights

- anticompetitive practices

- disclosure of origin, prior informed

consent and benefit-sharing

- effective mechanisms to challenge the

validity of patents

- sufficiency of disclosure

- transfer of technology

- alternative models to promote inno-

vation

Quite amazingly, the prior art, the grace pe-

riod, the novelty and the inventive step, al-

though they were largely debated at the

Open Forum, were not cited in the "9 issues

list".

Concerning the methodology to be fol-

lowed, India suggested to merge the SCP

and the IGC (in charge of Traditional

knowledge, Genetic resources and Folk-

lore), since some issues were common to

both Committees. China tried to suggest a

compromise by prioritizing the "4 issues

list" + 4 issues selected from the "9 issues

list", such 8 issues being debated at the

SCP. The EU in an ultimate attempt to

reach a consensus suggested i) to debate at

the SCP on the "4 issues list" + 3 issues

(namely the exclusions from patentability,

the exceptions to patent rights and the suf-

ficiency of disclosure) selected from the "9

issues list", and ii) to debate on the obliga-

tion of providing the origin of genetic re-

sources at the IGC.

Neither the Chinese attempt, nor the Euro-

pean one led to any consensus, the "Friends

of Development" sticking on their position.

As a result, the informal SCP session was

unable to establish the future SCP work

programme, leaving the WIPO General As-

semblies (September 25 - October 3, 2006)

to decide on the question. As a further re-

sult, the SCP meeting scheduled in July

2006 is cancelled. ●


Alain Gallochat

Report of the WIPO InformalSession of the SCP, Geneva

April 10 to 12, 2006

Alain GallochatChairman Special Committee Q170

11

This SCP informal session was the

2nd step of the September 2005

WIPO General Assembly which

decided to deal with the SPLT in

three successive steps fixed as fol-

lows:

- an informal Open Forum

(March 1-3, 2006);

- a three-day informal session of

the SCP to agree on a working

programme for the SCP

(April 10-12, 2006);

- an ordinary SCP session

(July 3-7, 2006).

The goal of that session was to

determine the future work pro-

gramme of the SCP.

All the delegations confirmed the

major interest of the Open Forum

held on March 1-3, 2006, where

a lot of issues were debated; it

was also reminded that the pro-

gramme of said Forum, as well as

the speakers, was the result of a

negotiation among the Member

States of WIPO, in order to show

and to take into consideration the

great diversity of issues and opi-

nions.

June 2006

Konrad Becker

Review of WIPOs 9th Sessionof the GRTKF, Geneva

April 24 to 28, 2006

Konrad BeckerChairman Special Committee Q166

Property. On the other hand, Brasil and

South Africa (in the name of the African

group) supported by Latin American coun-

tries, India and others insisted on an all-in-

clusive discussion making progress in the

direction of a binding instrument. Due to

time constraints and complexity of the

questions, proposals were not just presented

orally at the meeting, but will be accepted in

writing in the coming months for inclusion

in documents for the next, 10th Session

later this year.

The WIPO secretariat had done a com-

mendable job in preparing documents for

discussion. However, many basic questions

are still open, such as definitions of Folklore

(TCE/EoF) and of Traditional Knowledge

(TK), the relationship between a potential

international instrument and regional or na-

tional titles, the question of TCE and TK

registration, what would be considered as

misappropriation/misuse of TCE or TK,

and others.

The IGC did also not move forward on as-

pects of Genetic Resources. The summary

of the open questions, the past work of the

IGC and of corresponding committees in

other fora (especially the CBD), and the op-

tions for possible activities was discussed

and the work of the secretariat acknow-

ledged, however, the Conference could not

agree on actions to be taken.

This would have been particularly impor-

tant in view of the fact that the question of

disclosure of source (and/or country of ori-

gin) of genetic resources in patent applica-

tion is also tabled in other fora, e.g. TRIPS

and PCT.

The IGC will again meet in the first week

of December 2006 for its 10th session. ●


This means that the original tension in the

IGC remains unresolved: Should it work

towards a binding international instrument,

a non-binding statement or recommenda-

tion, guidelines or model provisions, inter-

pretations of existing legal instruments or a

declaration stating core principles? This

tension was reflected in the opening state-

ments and the contribution to the particular

topics. Discussion was furthermore compli-

cated by the interventions of NGOs, espe-

cially those representing indigenous people.

The principles of a Voluntary Fund for fi-

nancing travel and participation costs of in-

dividuals representing indigenous people in

order to allow them to participate in (fu-

ture) IGCs had already been accepted at the

8th Conference. The present Conference

selected the Advisory Board dealing with

requests for support, and acknowledged

contributions from Sweden and France to

the Fund.

The conference proceeded with discussions

on two structurally related documents, one

dealing with (I) policy objectives, (II) gen-

eral guiding principles and (III) substantive

principles of the protection of Traditional

Cultural Expressions (TCE) and Expres-

sions of Folklore (EoF), and the same three

groups of statements for the protection of

Traditional Knowledge (TK).

Procedural issues took a lot of time, espe-

cially the question whether the substantive

principles (III) should be discussed or just

the policy objectives and general guiding

principles. It was clear that the United

States, European Union, Japan, Australia

and others were not in favour of a binding

international instrument and therefore are

not willing to discuss substantive provisions.

Furthermore these countries insist on the

prevalence of existing international agree-

ments and national laws on Intellectual

12

The Intergovernmental Commit-

tee (IGC) on Intellectual Property

and Genetic Resources, Tradi-

tional Knowledge and Folklore

(GRTKF) met for the 9th Session

from April 24 to 28, 2006. The

WIPO General Assembly had

extended the mandate of the

IGC for another two years

(2006/2007), emphasizing the

international dimensions of its

work, but without limiting the

IGC on the content, nature, for-

mat or status of the outcome.

www.aippi.org

June 2006

The working conferences, which reached a

record attendance of 210 professionals, fo-

cused on the latest and future developments

in the field of Industrial and Intellectual

Property. The session was opened by the

Secretary General for Industry of the Spa-

nish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and

Trade, Mr. Joan Trullén.

The subject matter of the Symposium was

wide-ranging. Regarding Trademarks, the

conference highlighted the problems of le-

gal certainty resulting from the double re-

gistration of identical trademarks in those

systems, like the Spanish one, where Exa-

miners no longer have the power to raise ex-

officio objections on the basis of prior

rights. The sessions also dealt with overlaps

and conflicts of jurisdiction between the

Spanish Community Trademark and De-

sign Courts and the Spanish Commercial

Courts as well as the criteria for determi-

ning the likelihood of confusion, infringe-

ment and preliminary injunctions.

Another important topic of the conference

was the borderline between trademarks and

designs. The session went over the reasons

behind the different forms of protection,

the requirements for obtaining protection

and the different nature of the protection

afforded by trademarks and designs. A

roundtable on the likelihood of confusion

and the most relevant factors for determi-

ning whether two trademarks are confu-

singly similar was conducted by Mr. Tomás

de las Heras, President of the Second Board

of Appeals of the Office for Harmonisation

in the Internal Market (OHIM) with wide

expertise in such area. He explained the cri-

teria followed by the OHIM in view of the

principles set by the European Court of Jus-

tice.

As for Patents, the sessions analysed the

controversial topic of patents and software

and the requirements to be met, both from

the perspective of the European Patent Of-

fice and also from a more independent,

global and juridical perspective.

Concerning Domain Names, a presentation

was made on the new uniform out-of-court

conflict resolution procedure for domain

names under the country code for Spain

(".es"), which has recently come into force.

The conference also counted on reputed

Magistrates Mr. Fernández Seijó, Judge of

the Mercantile Court No. 3 of Barcelona

and Mr. Rafael Fuentes Devesa, Judge of

the Spanish Community Trade Mark

Court, who presented their latest experi-

ences in litigation arising from industrial

and Intellectual Property disputes. A very

lively debate took place after these presenta-

tions.

The conference also dealt with the

EC/2004/48 Directive on the enforcement

of Intellectual Property rights. The Direc-

tive is due for transposition by 29 April,

2006 and the Spanish Parliament is dis-

cussing a Reform Bill to implement this Di-

rective.

Last but not least, there were lectures on the

future prospects of the European Patent

system, addressed by the Vice-President of

the European Patent Office Mr. Manuel

Desantes, and on the future prospects of

Spanish-related aspects of Industrial Pro-

perty and of the Spanish Patent and Trade-

mark Office, conducted by its General Di-

rector Ms. Teresa Mogin.

In conclusion, the XXI Symposium was

successful and fulfilled its objectives due to

the high level of attendance and the quality

of the lectures and speakers. Special thanks

to all the attendees and to the organising

committee for their hard work. ●


Marcelino Curell Aguilá

Review of the Symposium ofthe Spanish Group, Barcelona

February 1 to 2, 2006

Marcelino Curell AguiláPresident of the Spanish National Group

13

The XXI Symposium on Industrial

and Intellectual Property of the

Spanish Group of AIPPI was held in

Barcelona on February, 1 and 2,

2006.

From left to right: Mr. Manuel Desantes, Vice-Presi-dent of the EPO with Ms. Teresa Mogin, General Di-rector of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Officeand Mr. Marcelino Curell Aguilá, President of theSpanish National Group during the conferences

June 2006

João Pereira da Cruz

Report of the Annual GeneralMeeting of the Portuguese

Group, Lisbon, April 4, 2006

João Pereira da CruzPresident of the Portuguese National Group

Durán, who was able to capture the atten-

tion of the audience for a considerable

period of time with his paper on such an im-

portant and topical issue, which was fur-

thermore recently the subject of part of a

questionnaire drawn up by the European

Commission on the future of the patent sys-

tem in Europe. His discussion also pro-

voked an interesting debate and it became

clear to the participants that the winds of

change are approaching and that we need to

start adapting in order to keep up with any

new developments that may occur.

The conference was followed by a dinner at

the restaurant of the Grémio Literário, du-

ring which the members of the Group and

invited guests had the opportunity to so-

cialise and exchange impressions on the fu-

ture of our profession.

At the end of the evening, thanks were

given to the conference speakers and Luis-

Alfonso Durán was informed of his election

as an Honorary Member of the Portuguese

Group of AIPPI. This honour was be-

stowed in recognition of his outstanding

services to Intellectual Property at world

level and to AIPPI in particular, and very

specially to the Portuguese Group in view of

the friendship that unites us and the assis-

tance that he has always provided in pro-

moting our interests. ●


The Portuguese Group of AIPPI holds an-

nually at this time in the calendar its Ordi-

nary General Meeting in order to discuss

and approve the activities carried out by the

Group during the previous year, lay down

guidelines for the forthcoming year and, if

necessary, elect the governing bodies. Our

meeting took place on 4th April 2006 and,

as is now customary, it was held at the

premises of the Grémio Literário, a long-

established literary club in Lisbon, and was

attended by a large number of participants.

After the working sessions had been con-

cluded, a conference was held on the subject

of Arbitration and Industrial Property and

the EPLA. During the first part the spea-

kers were two former presidents of the Por-

tuguese Bar Association, Augusto Lopes

Cardoso and António Pires de Lima, and

their papers were moderated by our col-

league César Bessa Monteiro.

The lack of specialisation in industrial

property law on the part of the courts and

the fact that decisions take a long time to be

given are making it increasingly necessary to

encourage arbitration as a solution to many

of the problems which arise in this area.

The new Industrial Property Code of 2003

already provides for the use of arbitration as

an alternative to judicial decisions – which

would not seem to be easy bearing in mind

that many decisions of the Portuguese In-

dustrial Property Office involve absolute

grounds for refusal – and it is a mechanism

that is intended to be used for resolving

conflicts between the parties. The composi-

tion of the Court of Arbitration gave rise to

an interesting debate, since the fact that it

may only include specialist arbitrators will

certainly be a considerable advantage.

The EPLA was brilliantly dealt with by the

AIPPI Reporter General Luis-Alfonso

14

Impression from the Grémio Literário

www.aippi.org

June 2006

Under the name Asociacion Chilena de

Propiedad Industrial (ACHIPI), the

Chilean Group was founded on July 3, 1968

by Messrs. Arturo Alessandri B., Eugenio

Barros L., Guillermo E. Beuchat M., Marco

A. Cariola B., Benjamin Claro V., Patricio

Claro T., Alfredo Cordero A., German

Harnecker J., Eduardo Jarry R., Pedro Jo-

hansson BV., Pablo Langlois D., Raimundo

Langlois V., Ramón Leiva M., Bernardo

Luchsinger D., Lorenzo Pfenninger B.,

Tomás C. Sargent, Godofredo Sutzin L,

Federico Villaseca M., Federico Villaseca

O. and Sergio Villaseca O. The by-laws of

the Association were formalized on August

13, 1968 and were subsequently amended

on August 24, 1970 and on March 16, 2002.

The Association was created basically to

foster Industrial Property. On June 24,

1969, AIPPI officially recognized it as its

Chilean Group. The Association admits

membership of legal persons, professional

associations or enterprises in general with

professional or commercial activities related

to Industrial Property and individuals ap-

pointed as honorary members by the board

of directors of the Association.

From 1968 through 2006, the following in-

dividuals were members of the board of di-

rectors: Arturo Alessandri B., Sergio

Amenabar V., Eugenio Barros L., Marco A.

Cariola B., Patricio Claro T., Alfredo

Cordero A., Andres Echeverria B., Luis Ar-

turo Gardeweg L., Germán Harnecker J.,

Juvenal Hernandez S., Eduardo Jarry R.,

Pedro Johansson BV., Pablo Langlois D.,

Raimundo Langlois V., Carlos Larrain PO.,

Ramón Leiva M., Omar Saavedra A., Mario

Silva M., Federico Villaseca O., and Sergio

Villaseca O. In 1993 the following members

were elected of a period ending on April

1996: Sergio Amenabar V., Guillermo

Beuchat M., Fernando Castro G., Patricio

Claro T., Jorge Garay M., Andrés Echever-

ria B. and Rodrigo Velasco S. In view of the

death of Patricio Claro T. in 1994, Mario

Porzio B. took office as member of the

board for the remaining period.

In April 1996 a new board was elected for a

period ending in 1999 with the following

members: Sergio Amenabar, Fernando Cas-

tro, Felipe Claro, Andres Echeverria, Jorge

Garay, Marino Porzio and Rodrigo Velasco.

After Mr. Castro's resignation in 1997, Ms.

Adriana Villaseca took office as a member

of the board for the remaining period.


period ending in 2002 and the following

members were elected: Sergio Amenabar,

Jorge Garay, Andrés Echeverria, Andrés

Melossi, Marino Porzio and Rodrigo Ve-

lasco.



members were elected: Sergio Amenabar,

Guillermo Carey, Felipe Claro, Rodrigo

Cooper, Felipe Langlois, Andrés Melossi

and Marino Porzio.



members were elected: Guillermo Carey,

Felipe Claro, Rodrigo Cooper, Felipe Lan-

glois, Andrés Melossi, Cristian Mir and

Max Villaseca. The current President of the

Chilean Association is Mr. Rodrigo

Cooper. As honorary members, the names

of Ramon Leiva M. and Arturo Alessandri

B. former Vice President and Senator,

should be mentioned.

The Chilean Group has had a significant

role in the promotion of Industrial Property

within the country, such as through its par-

ticipation in the discussions of the new law

enacted in December 2005. ●


Andrés Melossi

The Chilean Group

Andrés MelossiDirector of the Chilean National Group

15

SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Q Title Reporter in charge Chairman

Q85 Community Trademark Luis-Alfonso Durán Martin S. Nielsen

Q94 GATT/WTO Thierry Calame Ivan Hjertman

Q109 Patent Cooperation Treaty Luis-Alfonso Durán Heinz Bardehle

Q114 Biotechnology Thierry Calame Charles Gielen

Q132 Computer software, information Dariusz Szleper Michel de Beaumontnetworks, artificial intelligenceand integrated circuits

Q153 The Hague Conference on Dariusz Szleper Constant J.J.C. Private International Law van Nispen

Q160 ICANN Nicolai Lindgreen Jane Mutimear

Q162 Community Patent Regulation Luis-Alfonso Durán Peter-Ulrik Plesner

Q165 Optional Protocol to the EPC with Jochen Bühling Jochen Pagenbergregard to Litigation concerningEuropean and Community Patents

Q166 Intellectual Property and Genetic Ian Karet Konrad BeckerResources, Traditional Knowledgeand Folklore

Q170 Substantive Patent Law Treaty Nicolai Lindgreen Alain Gallochat

Q177 Substantive Trademark Law Nicolai Lindgreen Marino PorzioHarmonisation

Q179 Effectiveness of Regional Systems Jochen Bühling Kerry Tomlinsonfor protecting Intellectual Property

Q180 Content and Relevance of Industrial Jochen Bühling Isabelle RometApplicability and/or Utility as Requirements for Patentability

Q184 Bilateral, trilateral and other Free Luis-Alfonso Durán Peter Dirk SiemsenTrade Agreements in the Americas

Q185 Enforcement of IP Rights Dariusz Szleper Alexander Harguth

A list of all AIPPI Committees from Q1-Q192 in numerical order is available on the AIPPI Website: www.aippi.org

June 2006

Overview of Working andSpecial Committees


16

Working Committees:

The pending questions are studied within

AIPPI by Working Committees consisting

of Members of high expertise. Based on the

Reports of National and Regional Groups,

Working Committees prepare proposals for

Reports and Resolutions which are discussed

at Congresses and Executive Committee

Meetings.

Special Committees:

Special Committees guarantee that AIPPI

is promptly informed about current deve-

lopments and new problems in particular

fields and monitor the long-range projects

of international legal development. They

are active where there is no specific current

issue requiring action by a Working Com-

mittee.

WORKING COMMITTEES

Q Title Reporter in charge

Q189 Amendmend of patent claims after grant (in Jochen Bühlingcourt and administrative proceedings, Nicolai Lindgreenincluding re-examination proceedings requested by third parties)

Q190 Contracts regarding Intellectual Property Rights Ian Karet(assignments and licenses) and third parties

Q191 Relationship between trademarks and Thierry Calamegeographical indications

Q192 Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Dariusz SzleperIntellectual Property Rights

nl20 mitartikel.ps, page 1-16 @ normalize ( nl20 mit ... · patent application and which could be...

Documents