Monday, 11 December 2017

Food for thought

Last month we advertised a conference i.e. Heritage Across Borders. This was now extended to 31st of December, 2017.

Under the session Tangible and Intangible and under the title: 'Intellectual Property and the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Emerging Themes and Challenges in Transboundary and Diaspora Contexts' I submitted a proposal that may be of interest to you [and I definitely will need your help with this paper]. In this proposal I am linking Intangible Heritage, Intellectual Property and Latin America.

You perhaps have heard that back in 2009, UNESCO supported the project to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of the ‘Aymara’ communities of Bolivia, Chile and Peru. This was to be a 5 year project and I have not heard much about how did it go i.e. has this improved Aymara’s TK?
The Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee 4.COM 15B here, aimed to identify and prepare a catalogue of the Aymara’s TK [excited to read this catalogue (anyone?)]; it also involved to promote and disseminate Aymara’s oral and musical expressions, and moreover to support TK on the production of textile arts.

Here you have then an idea of what a proposal looks like or at least starts as…just put your minds to work and hopefully I will see you in China.

Original post here.

Thursday, 23 November 2017

Parliament standards: submitting plagiarised documents

Yesterday the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and the Faculty of Physical Sciences and Mathematics of the University of Chile has signed a collaboration agreement to avoid plagiarism in documents.

This comes as no surprise since between 2014 and 2016, there were at least 40 deputies who paid for reports which were plagiarized by either showing verbatim copies taken from the Internet or without citing sources. The Congress therefore resorted to use an anti-plagiarism tool created by the University of Chile known as DOCODE. The software program has been created by the Web Intelligence Center of the Department of Industrial Civil Engineering of the University of Chile (WIC). The software “allows the detection of plagiarism based on technologies of text mining and natural language processing. The tool analyzes the documents that users upload and compares them with all documents indexed on the web and / or a repository of documents created by them. Then, it gives as a result a report of plagiarism in which the different sources of extraction of the document can be reviewed, being able to visit them for their reading.” According to the publication, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies would be “the only legislative body in Latin America ‘that applies a model of this type’”.

The Speaker of the House, noted that the collaboration agreements “is of enormous importance to raise Parliament's standards in terms of submitting documents such as bills, external consultancies, commission reports, etc.”. The parliamentarian also stressed that the use of this tool will place the Chamber of Deputies as the only legislative body in Latin America "that applies a model of this type, where all the works will be part of a comprehensive review process."

Tuesday, 14 November 2017

Heritage Across Borders

The above conference has been advertised by the UK Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) as well as other forums.

I would like to further up upon this since I am co-ordinating three sub-sessions in this exciting Conference taking place in China. They are under the session Tangible and Intangible. The invitation is as follow:

Intellectual Property and the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Emerging Themes and Challenges in Transboundary and Diaspora Contexts
Since the Intangible Heritage Convention was adopted by UNESCO in 2003, intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and its parallel concepts such as traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) have been increasingly important subjects of debate in several other international forums, such as WIPO, CBD (including its Nagoya Protocol), WHO, and the WTO. As more countries implement the Convention, national policy-makers and communities of practice have been exploring the use of intellectual property (IP) protection to achieve ICH safeguarding outcomes (as well as other political and economic goals). For example, inscription of ways to make food and craft products on the Lists of the Convention is often associated with efforts to register geographical indications to protect use of the names of those products.
The intersection between ICH safeguarding and IP protection raises questions about the nature of ownership or stewardship over ICH, the appropriate nature of any kind of IP protection, and its likely effects. Many of these issues have been discussed in the context of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, TK and TCEs, but there has been relatively little debate about protecting IP rights in transboundary heritage, especially concerning safeguarding under the UNESCO Convention. Much ICH is shared (and contested) across national borders, and can easily be translated to and practised in new locations, which poses challenges for protecting IP rights, especially in the absence of widely-ratified international agreements.
This session will consider various strategies (legislative or otherwise) to establish and/or protect IP rights over ICH in transboundary and diaspora contexts, and how they might affect efforts to maintain practice and transmission (safeguarding) of that ICH. Session papers may present case studies of IP protection regarding transboundary ICH, and/or the role of measures such as provisions for mutual recognition and national treatment, IP chapters in international, regional or bilateral trade agreements, contractual agreements under the Nagoya Protocol, and ethical guidelines and dispute resolution mechanisms. Papers may include references to all forms of intellectual property, including patents, copyright, design rights, trademarks (certification marks and collective marks), geographical indications, and sui generis rights.

The session will involve a triple session (two speaker sessions and one panel session). The speaker’s session will consist of 4 people each, and the panel session (single session) will consist of 8 speakers with a special focus on food heritage and IP protection.

Deadline for submissions: Thursday 30 November 2017

Let me know if you need more information. You can communicate to me informally about any project you feel will be suitable to the conference (or anything else – IP related of course :0).

More information here.

Saturday, 11 November 2017

CHILE: INAPI actualiza las directrices de examen de patentes

El Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial de Chile ha informado la publicación de una versión actualizada de sus Directrices de Examen de Patentes. El texto actualizado se puede consultar en, en la sección "Biblioteca Digital", "Libros", específicamente en la página 125 y siguientes.
La versión actualizada aborda los siguientes puntos:
1) Clarifica que en el evento que una solicitud pudiera dar origen a más de una solicitud divisional, INAPI debe verificar que la solicitud original no se encuentre con resolución definitiva. Si así fuera, las eventuales solicitudes divisionales que pudieran devenir, sean de primera o segunda generación, no podrán beneficiarse del tratamiento de una solicitud divisional e INAPI dispondrá, entre otras medidas, la corrección de la base de datos, eliminando la mención "divisional".
En consecuencia, la presentación de sucesivas solicitudes divisionales tiene como limitación, que la solicitud original no tenga resolución definitiva emitida por INAPI.
2) Aclara y establece que dado que la solicitud divisional se separa de la solicitud original para efectos de su examen, y conserva la misma prioridad de esta última, se le aplican las mismas normas que a la solicitud original para determinar su vigencia, así como para el pago de tasas.
3) Para efectos de determinar el pago de las tasas de mantención de las solicitudes divisionales se establece la fecha de término de los quinquenios o decenios de la solicitud original. En el caso que la tramitación de la solicitud divisional demore más de un quinquenio o decenio según corresponda, se habrán de pagar ambos periodos juntos, una vez que se concede la solicitud divisional, que por cierto, es el mismo procedimiento que se sigue respecto de cualquier solicitud.
4) Se deja expresa constancia que para el caso que la patente original obtuviera una extensión en el plazo de vigencia en virtud de las normas sobre Protección Suplementaria, arts. 53 Bis 1 y siguientes de la Ley 19.039, dicha extensión no será aplicable a la(s) solicitud(es) divisional(es) de la solicitud original, ya que la alegación de eventuales demoras injustificadas dice relación con las particularidades de la tramitación y, en ese contexto, con el requerimiento que se formulara y concediera, si fuera el caso, por el Tribunal de Propiedad Industrial.

Friday, 10 November 2017

Mexico seeks protection for Artisans

Nestlé, Mango, and Yuya, a Mexican Youtuber, are in the spotlight for the alleged unauthorised use and plagiarism of the traditional craft designs of Hidalgo

Due to their high quality and beautiful designs, Hidalgo handcrafts and folk art are very popular. They are at the top of the list of preparation and spinning of textile fibres and yarn manufacturing in Mexico. Together with the States of Campeche, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco and Veracruz sum the 40.3% of the national handicrafts, followed by Chiapas and Guerrero with the 23%. However, the success of this handiwork is tarnished by its unauthorised use and plagiarism, which are denounced continuously by artisans.

Nestlé was involved in this matter when the artisans Adalberto Flores Gómez and Angélica Martínez noticed that their drawings were used in a series of the hot cocoa cups ‘Abuelita’ a brand belonging to this company. Consequently, a civil process aiming the protection of the rights and interests of this artisans was initiated before the Office of Attorney-General. In this regard, Nestlé’s vice president of corporate communications affirmed that no author’s right had been violated because this advertising campaign was designed by the advertising agency JWT with the objective to promote the dissemination of traditional artistic draws and the traditions of Mexican culture. Hence, in doing so, copyright formalities and contract law were fully respected by the company and the artist who designed the campaign. Nevertheless, the final decision is in the hands of the Office of Attorney-General.
In the same way, Mango, a Spanish company commercialising clothing items, was accused of using Hidalgo designs in a jumper. Unlike Nestlé, this company accepted in a letter that the design corresponds to the embroideries of Tenango de Doria (Hidalgo), and affirmed that the jumper was withdrawn from the market.

Yuya is the last person being accused of authorised use of handcraft designs. Her new cosmetic product line uses designs from the handcraft of Tenango de Doria and Hidalgo. So far, the Youtuber has affirmed that on the recommendation of her attorneys she will no concede interviews on this matter.

Given these facts, the Deputies of the Local Congress introduced a bill for the reform of the Artisanal Promotion Law. Their aim is to provide artisans with legal tools and adequate means to claim their rights over their handcrafts and designs before national or transnational companies and natural persons. If adopted, this reform would constitute a significant advance towards the protection of artisans’ rights.

Post written by Florelia Vallejo Trujillo
Assistant Professor, Universidad del Tolima, Colombia
PhD Candidate University of Nottingham, UK

Brazil: going to Madrid?

Welcome Madrid System!
At the Brazilian Office of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Instituto Nacional da Propiedade Industrial (INPI) presented a project showing the adequacy of the Institute's structure, which is a “fundamental step for Brazil's possible accession to the Madrid Protocol”. This appears to go in line with the Brazilian Presidency’s message on the topic which was delivered to the National Congress back in June.

At the moment the registration of a trade mark takes 25 months if unopposed but by 2018 such period will be shortened by the required 18 months. It is also said that by 2019, INPI might be starting to receive international orders via the Madrid System.

WIPO’s director and the regional director of the WIPO Office in Brazil and the INPI’s president spoke about the importance of the Madrid System enhancing the significance of the Madrid Protocol for Brazilian companies. INPI’s president also noticed the need for a better IT infrastructure and the necessity to hire new trade marks examiners.

Source INPI.

Thursday, 9 November 2017

EE.UU.: Jurado resuelve en contra de dueño de inmueble y a favor de grafiteros

El martes recién pasado finalizó en Brooklyn un juicio que resolvió si el graffiti, a pesar de su naturaleza transitoria, debe o no ser reconocido como obra de arte. El jurado a cargo decidió que el desarrollador inmobiliario demandado (Jerry Wolkoff) es responsable de la destrucción hace tres años de 50 pinturas murales que habían sido pintadas en las paredes de sus edificios en Queens y cometió infracción tipificada en la Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), 17 U.S.C. § 106A.

El caso se remonta al mes de noviembre de 2013, cuando el propietario del inmueble dispuso que se cubrieran con pintura blanca los graffitis que estaban en los edificios de su propiedad en Long Island City, Queens, en un complejo llamado 5Pointz, un verdadero oasis legal conocido como la Naciones Unidas del Grafitti

Posteriormente el dueño demolió el edificio de almacenes para construir lo que hoy es un edificio de departamentos de lujo. En esos almacenes el propio dueño invitó durante 20 años a los artistas a mostrar su arte en las paredes del complejo industrial, convirtiéndolo en "el mayor museo del aerosol al aire libre del mundo", según el abogado de los artistas que demandaron por los daños y perjuicios por la destrucción de la estrucutura en que se plasmaban los grafittis.

El núcleo de la discusión jurídica es la ley VARA de 1990, que otorga a los artistas ciertos derechos sobre su obra. En este sentido la norma en su texto original indica que: "(a)Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art—
(1) shall have the right—
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right—
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right"

Antes de que el edificio fuera demolido en 2014, el juez del primer caso planteado decidió que los artistas no tenían derecho a que su trabajo, pintado en el exterior de un edificio de dominio ajeno e imposible de separar de los muros, se conservara indefinidamente. 

En un segundo intento judicial, en el año 2015, volvieron a entablar una demanda, esta vez por por daños y perjuicios en virtud de los derechos morales y el derecho a la integridad de su trabajo conforme a la ley, a pesar de la propiedad ajena del inmueble o la ubicación de las pinturas. El juez del Distrito Este de Nueva York, Frederic Block, resolvió derivar el asunto a un jurado, que es el que acaba de resolver en favor de los artistas El veredicto del jurado, en el Tribunal Federal de Distrito en Brooklyn, servirá como una recomendación para el juez que presidió el caso y que emitirá un fallo final.