28 February 2012: Intervention delivered by Ecuador @ WTO TRIPS Council raising concerns with ACTA

According to informed sources, the delegation of Ecuador delivered the following statement to the WTO Council for TRIPS on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 raising concerns that the damages section found under Article 9 of ACTA could potentially chill the flexibilities found under Article 44 of the TRIPS Agreement which sets out the WTO rules on injunctions.

CONSEJO DE LOS ADPIC
28-29 DE FEBRERO DE 2012
PUNTO N. DE LA AGENDA
INTERVENCIÓN DEL ECUADOR

Señor Presidente,

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

28 Feb 2012: Intervention delivered by India at WTO TRIPS Council on IP Enforcement Trends noting concerns with ACTA and TPPA

This intervention was delivered by India at today’s WTO Council for TRIPS during discussions of agenda item “N” on IP Enforcement Trends. The statement raises India’s concerns with plurilateral agreements like ACTA and TPPA and their potential impacts on public health, international exhaustion, border measures and digital goods and internet freedom.

IP Enforcement Trends
(TRIPS council Feb 28, 2012)

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Agenda of TRIPS Council meeting (28-29 February 2012): Review of ACTA and Australia’s tobacco plain packaging bill 2011

The following WTO airgram WTO/AIR/3892/REV.1 contains the agenda for the upcoming WTO Council for TRIPS meeting to be held in Geneva from Tuesday, 28 February 2012 to Wednesday, 29 February 2012. Paragraph 2 and agenda items D, E, F, J, M and N will be of interest to readers. It should be noted that in the original document, the text is capitalized.

The Dominican Republic made a written request to the WTO secretariat that an additional agenda item be added (“M) on “Australia: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and its compatibility with the TRIPS Agreement”.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Total expenses vs reported expenditures on lobbying, six trade associations that lobby on IPR

President Obama claims to have kept “lobbyists” off the advisory boards for USTR. The Obama Administration relies upon the narrow legal definition of those persons who register to lobby the US Congress, which excludes expenditures to direct, supervise or support the lobbyists, and expenditures of many staff and consultants who are not fully engaged in lobbying the Congress. Expenditures to influence the executive branch (including USTR) has very little if any regulation, and are not counted as lobbying. Continue Reading

Uncategorized