Exclusive interview: Ricardo Blancaflor, IPOPHL


At the end of April, the Philippines deposited its instrument of accession to join the Madrid Protocol on international trade marks. It will become the 86th member of the system. But joining Madrid threatens to undermine the trade mark prosecution business of many domestic law firms. Managing IP sat down with the head of the IP Office of the Philippines, Ricardo Blancaflor (right), during the INTA Annual Meeting last month to discuss domestic opposition to Madrid, as well as his anti-counterfeiting work and amendments to the IP Code.

What was the primary reason you pushed for the Philippines to join the Madrid Agreement? I think it was inevitable that the Philippines would join at some point. It was just a question of time. International systems like this cannot be unwound, and you only damage your country's economy by not being...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


More from the Managing IP blog


June 2013

The Madrid Protocol comes of age

India’s accession means the Madrid Protocol now covers more than two-thirds of the world’s population. Is this the tipping-point for the international trade mark system, and what reforms are needed? Emma Barraclough, James Nurton and Alli Pyrah report



Most read articles

Poll

Following the US Apple v Samsung trial, do you think juries should play a role in patent cases?







Supplements