 |
| Maria Martin-Prat |
 |
| Michele Woods |
 |
| Maria Pallante |
Dimitris Botis (Deputy Director of Legal Affairs at the newly named EUIPO) was next to discus the future of the EU trade mark system in particular the recent trade marks reform package consisting of Directive 2015/2436 and Regulation 2015/2424. The biggest change in substantive trade mark law is the deletion of the graphic representation requirement which means that it will be easier to register non-traditional marks. The exact impact of this change on filing practice and types of marks that can be accepted will not be seen until the implementing rules are issued on 1 October 2017. The second biggest change is to the functionality prohibition to "other characteristics". There is now also an express requirement for clarity and precision in specifying the goods and services that are specified for the mark. It will be based on the "natural and usual meaning" of terms (i.e .interpreted literally). The new fee structure and levels with a new "one-fee-per-class" system is also a big change. There has been a moderate reduction of the application fee and substantial reduction of renewal fees. Dimitris also pointed out that there is also new EU Certification mark which can be registered to ensure the certification of the quality, material, mode of manufacture etc, but cannot be used in relation to geographical origin. Institutionally, there will be changes in terminology - hello EUIPO! But its not just changes in terminology, there is a change in management structure. The changes will be taking on a more political taste (the EU Commission has two seats now). The new Regulation also requires more cooperation between the Member States. Trevor Cook from Wilmer Hale said the change are really only technical in nature and do not generate a huge impact on substantive trade mark law. Dimitris agreed but the technical changes will ensure more efficient operation.
 |
| Shira Perlmutter |
Shira Perlmutter (Chief Policy Officer and Director of International Affairs, USPTO). Legislative stalemates are not uncommon but there other means of achieving reform, including stakeholder consultations and developing industry best practices. Shira also stated there is reason to be hopeful because the online markets have really developed over the past ten years and the discussion on copyright have progressed to the point were we are now talking about nuances of copyright systems, not the justification of copyright (echoing Maria's earlier comments).
 |
| Mark Seeley |
Mark Seeley (Senior VP and General Counsel at Elsevier). In response to an earlier question about the presence of lobbyist in copyright, Mark stated that if lobbying is defined as talking to people, he would be one of them. However, he does worry about the nature and quality of evidence that legislators examine when looking to formulate legislation, including the nature of advisers and consultants who advise the government. Another concern Mark shared is the nature of consultation surveys and questions which can seem one-sided or biased. The AmeriKat wonders if the recent Enforcement Consultation could be one of them?
Antony Taubman (WTO) reminded the audience that the WTO came into being 20 years ago and from its inception there has been a perceived rivalry between the WTO and WIPO. WTO could proudly extend this rivalry by the fact that they have just reached their 5th anniversary of no work at all on the GI register which is mandated by TRIPS. WTO's work jams, like WIPO's, seem pretty well entrenched. Antony echoed the sentiment that it is a period of real flux and a time to really think about what they should be doing in the filed of IP - there is a huge range of IP issues to tackle and a huge amount of interest to tackle these issues. But what should they be?
Is the panel optimistic about the future of IP reform? Antony said we can do tremendous things if we have greater alignment in international process and ensuring that the facts on the ground make their way into the international fora. Mark said that we need more space to discuss what is the problem we are trying to fix and is there even a problem? Is there a market solution, not a legislative solution that will have more impact? We just need a bit more time, he said, to think through these questions and possibilities. Shira is optimistic because there is more buy-in than there was 10 years ago on the concepts of IP. In the past 10 years we have seen much greater expertise and understanding of the issues globally. In a lot of bi and mutli-lateral conversations there is a considerable level of shared interest and concerns and a ripening of mutual understanding. Dimitris responded that the EUIPO is optimistic, but there is more work to be done to implement all of the reform provisions. Maria Pallante is also very optimistic, especially because copyright law has become ubiquitous in 21st Century life. She noted that solutions will be part statutory, regulatory and voluntary agreement-based. Michele is also optimistic, despite often feeling on the defensive with respect of the copyright system which is a good thing as it gives us a chance to explain the relevance of the system. Member States clearly want to use all aspects of copyright and they see the value, but reform is a slow process. However, as other panellists noted, there is an increasing level of knowledge and competence to help move the ball forward. Michele also stated its a very fun time to be in IP, especially copyright (i.e. Internet of Things). Maria Martin-Prat concluded by stating that her definition of "fun" is slightly different, but she is also optimistic, albeit a bit more cautious. Maria really hopes for more rational debate with less room for exaggeration than what has been seen in copyright debate in the past 10 years.
Antony Taubman (WTO) reminded the audience that the WTO came into being 20 years ago and from its inception there has been a perceived rivalry between the WTO and WIPO. WTO could proudly extend this rivalry by the fact that they have just reached their 5th anniversary of no work at all on the GI register which is mandated by TRIPS. WTO's work jams, like WIPO's, seem pretty well entrenched. Antony echoed the sentiment that it is a period of real flux and a time to really think about what they should be doing in the filed of IP - there is a huge range of IP issues to tackle and a huge amount of interest to tackle these issues. But what should they be?
Is the panel optimistic about the future of IP reform? Antony said we can do tremendous things if we have greater alignment in international process and ensuring that the facts on the ground make their way into the international fora. Mark said that we need more space to discuss what is the problem we are trying to fix and is there even a problem? Is there a market solution, not a legislative solution that will have more impact? We just need a bit more time, he said, to think through these questions and possibilities. Shira is optimistic because there is more buy-in than there was 10 years ago on the concepts of IP. In the past 10 years we have seen much greater expertise and understanding of the issues globally. In a lot of bi and mutli-lateral conversations there is a considerable level of shared interest and concerns and a ripening of mutual understanding. Dimitris responded that the EUIPO is optimistic, but there is more work to be done to implement all of the reform provisions. Maria Pallante is also very optimistic, especially because copyright law has become ubiquitous in 21st Century life. She noted that solutions will be part statutory, regulatory and voluntary agreement-based. Michele is also optimistic, despite often feeling on the defensive with respect of the copyright system which is a good thing as it gives us a chance to explain the relevance of the system. Member States clearly want to use all aspects of copyright and they see the value, but reform is a slow process. However, as other panellists noted, there is an increasing level of knowledge and competence to help move the ball forward. Michele also stated its a very fun time to be in IP, especially copyright (i.e. Internet of Things). Maria Martin-Prat concluded by stating that her definition of "fun" is slightly different, but she is also optimistic, albeit a bit more cautious. Maria really hopes for more rational debate with less room for exaggeration than what has been seen in copyright debate in the past 10 years.