Canadian representatives are involved in what have been termed plurilateral trade agreement talks aimed at the improved enforcement of intellectual property rights.
The Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement (ACTA) involves discussions between the governments of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the EU, Australia, Japan, Korea and other countries. Detailed information regarding this initiative only became available last spring via a leaked discussion paper, which appeared online.
It is clear that Canadian representatives have been involved in the ACTA process for some time through the department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Canada's participation was first disclosed in October 2007, although the announcement was not widely published. While public input was solicited early in 2008, a dearth of substantive information, in conjunction with the call having reached a very narrow audience, likely resulted in little feedback.
To date, it seems that neither the Canadian Intellectual Property Office nor organisations of IP professionals have been consulted. Rather surprisingly, Canadian representatives, as well as those of other countries, have recently stated hopes that an agreement could be concluded by year end. It is difficult to see how this could be accomplished when consultation has been so limited to date and opposition to this aspect of the negotiations has been increasing, particularly in Europe.
The proposed Agreement appears to contemplate increased international cooperation to stop counterfeiting and piracy, along with the establishment of best practices regarding enforcement. To round out the initiative, a more effective legal framework to combat piracy and counterfeiting is being considered. As might be imagined, it is difficult to understand precisely what might be covered by the trade agreement with only a very general discussion paper available as guidance, and even that not official.
Outstanding questions of particular interest to the intellectual property world include, what is encompassed by the term counterfeiting or infringement? Would parallel imports be included? Patents? A further aspect of the agreement likely of considerable interest to IP practitioners is the alleged requisite cooperation of internet service providers when enforcing IP rights.
 |
| Coleen Morrison |
Marks & Clerk Canada
PO Box 957, Station B
Ottawa ON K1P 1C2
Canada
Tel: +1 613 236 9561
Fax: +1 613 230 8821
info@marks-clerk.ca
www.marks-clerk.ca
