Table of Contents

1.1 INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 DECISION-MAKING AND NEGOTIATING BODIES ..................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives of WIPO ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Objectives of our the study ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Literature Review: ................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Methodology:.......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO STANDING COMMITTEES: ....................................................................................... 6
2.2 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP): ................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 Current issue in the SCP: .................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications
(SCT): ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Trademarks .................................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Industrial Designs ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.3 Geographical Indications ............................................................................................................... 22
2.3.4 Recommendation of SCT:............................................................................................................... 24
2.4 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR): ............................................................ 25
2.4.1 Copyright ........................................................................................................................................ 26
2.4.2 The Committee is currently engaged in discussing: ...................................................................... 27
2.5 Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS): ................................................................................................ 43
2.5.1 Why use WIPO Standards? ............................................................................................................ 43
2.5.2 Who sets WIPO Standards? ........................................................................................................... 43
2.5.3 What do WIPO Standards cover?................................................................................................... 43
2.5.4 CWS is currently involved in issues: ............................................................................................... 44
2.6 Standing Committee for Information Technologies ............................................................................. 45
2.7 Standing Committees of Experts........................................................................................................... 45
 CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION:

WIPO provides a global policy forum, where governments, intergovernmental organizations,

industry groups and civil society come together to address evolving intellectual property (IP)
issues.

WIPO member states and observers meet regularly in the various WIPO Committees and
decision-making bodies. Their challenge is to negotiate the changes and new rules needed to
ensure that the international IP system keeps pace with the changing world, and continues to
serve its fundamental purpose of encouraging innovation and creativity.

WIPO’s member states determine the direction, budget and activities of the Organization through
the decision-making bodies. We currently have 191 member states. To become a member, a state
must deposit an instrument of ratification or accession with the Director General. The WIPO
Convention provides that membership is open to any state that is: a member of the Paris
Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, or member of the Berne Union for the Protection
of Literary and Artistic Works; or a member of the United Nations, or of any of the United
Nations' Specialized Agencies, or of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that is a party
to the Statute of the International Court of Justice; or invited by the WIPO General Assembly to
become a member state of the Organization.

WIPO welcomes the inclusion of stakeholder organizations and interest groups as observers at
the formal meetings of member states.

There are several kinds of committees in the framework of the WIPO. The first group consists of
the ad hoc committees (Standing Committees) established by the General Assembly. Their aim is
to change - if there is a need to change the provisions of the existing international agreements
administered by the WIPO in any way, or if there is a need to pass a new international agreement
in the certain field. 6 The second group consists of the committees formed in the framework of
the international agreements referring to classifications: Locarno Agreement, Nice Agreement,
Strasbourg Agreement and Vienna Agreement. These committees are formed by the countries
signatories of these agreements. Their task is to periodically revise the existing classifications.
They are known by the title Standing Committees of Experts.

WIPO welcomes the inclusion of stakeholder organizations and interest groups as observers at
the formal meetings of member states.
1.2 DECISION-MAKING AND NEGOTIATING BODIES

1) Governing Bodies

Established by the WIPO Convention, these constituent organs, are WIPO’s highest decision-
making bodies. They traditionally meet in September/October each year in either ordinary or
extraordinary session.

 The WIPO General Assembly and the Assemblies of the member states of each
Union (e.g. the PCT Union Assembly)

 The WIPO Coordination Committee

 The WIPO Conference

2) Permanent Committees

Any of the Governing Bodies can constitute committees as required. For example:

 Program and Budget Committee (PBC)

 Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

 Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources,

Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC)

 Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE)

The International Classification treaties established permanent Committees of Experts with a

mandate periodically to revise and update the classification systems

3) Diplomatic Conferences

If one of the Standing or Permanent Committees determines that sufficient progress has been
made to move towards treaty adoption, the General Assembly can decide to convene
a Diplomatic Conference. This is a high level meeting of member states, convened with the sole
purpose of finalizing negotiations on a new treaty. The most recent have included:

 Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of a new Act of the Lisbon Agreement - The
Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical
Indications
  Diplomatic Conference to Conclude a Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by
Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities

 Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual Performances.

4) Standing Committees

These are ad hoc committees of experts established by a decision of the General Assembly for a
given purpose, e.g. to determine the need or otherwise for new treaty provisions:

1.3 Objectives of WIPO

1) The objectives of WIPO are, firstly, to promote the protection of and the respect for
intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among States; and, where
appropriate, in collaboration with other international organizations.
2) To ensure administrative cooperation among the intellectual property Unions established by
the treaties that are administered by WIPO.

1.4 Objectives of our the study

1. To understand functions of standing committee.

2. To study various discussion in which standing committee is involved.
3. To study the activities of each standing committee separately.

1.5 Literature Review:

1. WIPO AND THE BOOK :

The WIPO Handbook is an authoritative source of the WIPO standards recommendations and
guidance lines in the field of IP information and documentation.

2. TOP TENS IN 2010: PATENT, TRADE MARK COPYRIGHT, TRADE SECRET

CASES: Mc John Stephen, Northwestern Journal Of Technology and Intellectual Property.

This piece discusses notable intellectual property decision in 2010 in united states, viewed across
doctrinal lines, some interesting threads emerge. The scope of protection was at issue in each are,
such as weather human and business methods are patentable, whether a product idea may a tare
secret, and where the constitutional limits on copyright legislation lie.

3. A TRADE AGREEMENT CREATING BARRIERS TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE?

ACTA BORDER MEASURES AND GOODS IN TRANSIT, RUSE-KHAN HENNING
LAW REWIEV, SPRING 2011

By its title, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) considers itself a trade agreement.
The negotiating parties as well as its main proponent’s emphasis importance of strong
intellectual property enforcement standards for international trades in IP protected goods. At the
same time the border measures rules ACTA draft text carries the potential to create significance
barrier to international trade especially in generic medicines.

1.6 Methodology:

Type of Research and Research Design:

As for the research design, exploratory research is being used as the main purpose is to gain an
insight into, and an understanding of the economic international institution/ organization called
WIPO.

Data Collection Methods:

Data has been collected from Secondary sources such as: websites, magazines, journals, research
papers, reference books, official website of WIPO, newspapers and other industry related books.
 CHAPTER 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO STANDING COMMITTEES:

These are ad hoc committees of experts established by a decision of the General Assembly for a
given purpose, e.g. to determine the need or otherwise for new treaty provisions:

Standing committees are established by the decision of the General Assembly of the WIPO, if
there is a need to change the provisions of the existing international agreements administered by
WIPO, or if there is the need to pass the new international agreement in the specific field. The
work of these committees is, among other things, of great importance for the uniform practice of
member states, in particular the national intellectual property offices, in the procedures for the
protection of intellectual property rights. The experts in the given field of knowledge of
intellectual property from member states of the WIPO participate in the work of the committees.
They meet biannually in regular sessions organized and prepared by the WIPO Secretariat. The
Secretariat leads the sessions, prepares working materials and in every other way supports the
work of the committee. When the standing committee establishes that an essential improvement
has been made in the direction of the adoption of the new international agreements, the General
Assembly can decide to summon the Diplomatic Conference, the meeting at the high level,
dedicated exclusively to finalizing the negotiations about the new agreement. As an example, in
the March of 2006, the Diplomatic Conference was held in Singapore for the adoption of the
revised Trademark Law Treaty. There are following standing committees formed by the General
Assembly: Standing Committee for Patents (SCP), Standing Committee for Trademarks,
Industrial Designs and Indications of Geographical Origin (SCT), Standing Committee for
Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and Standing Committee for Information Technologies.

 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP)

 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical

Indications (SCT)

 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR)

 Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS)

2.2 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP):

The SCP was created in 1998 to serve as a forum to discuss issues, facilitate coordination and
provide guidance concerning the progressive international development of patent law. By dealing
with clusters of interlocking issues rather than working in isolation on single issues, it is intended
to provide member states with an effective mechanism for setting priorities and allocating
resources, and ensure the coordination and continuity of interrelated, on-going work.

Its primary role was to serve as a forum for discussion about the questions of importance for the
development of patent rights in the world. The Committee consists of the member countries of
the WIPO and the members of the Paris Union. In its work, as observers, the countries that are
not the members of the WIPO can also participate at the sessions of the “Paris Union” as well as
the certain intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.

From its foundation, this committee works on the international harmonization of patent rights.
The main achievements of the Committee for Patent Law in the recent years were the
negotiations regarding the “Patent Law Treaty” (PLT) as well as the passing of the “Manual
regarding the fulfillment of formal conditions in the procedure of patent protection”. This treaty
was adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on June 1, 2000, and it entered into force on April
28, 2005.

The discussion on the draft of the future international agreement under the title “Substantive
Patent Law Treaty” (SPLT) started at the fifth session of the Committee in May 2001. The
discussion was focused around the issues of the substantive importance on the grant of patents.
Among other things, the definitions of the new substantive issues were under discussion, just like
the state of the art, novelty inventive level, industrial utilization of the invention, question of
publication of inventions, etc. The Committee agreed that other current issues should be under
consideration at future meetings.

Although the discussion led to the fact that the delegations of the signatory states of this
agreement should be in harmony concerning some principled issues, the discussion opened new
dilemmas and new disagreements that were discussed till the twentieth session of the Committee
in January 2014 when the differences in the approach between the developed and undeveloped
countries became such that the question of survival of the committee was resolved by the
decision that in the future period one should give up the consideration of harmonization of the
legal issues and turn towards the elaboration of the compilation of the review of certain aspects
of national patent systems, not including analysis or evaluating.

The Committee is composed of all member states of WIPO and/or of the Paris Union. As
observers, certain member states of the UN, who are not members of WIPO and/or the Paris
Union, as well as a number of accredited intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations, also participate in the SCP.

2.2.1 Current issue in the SCP:

1) Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights

While the granting of exclusive patent rights is considered as an incentive for investment in
innovative activities and the production of knowledge, allowing the enforcement of the full
scope of the exclusive rights in all circumstances may not always meet the ultimate goal of
the patent system to enhance the public welfare. Therefore, in order to strike the right balance
between the interests of the right holders, third parties and the public, the scope of the
enforceable exclusive rights may be set under national patent laws according to certain
exceptions and limitations to patent rights that have been reserved for decision by individual
countries.

Since the socio-economic conditions and priorities of a country influence this balancing of
interests, provisions in patent laws on exceptions and limitations vary from one country to
another. Nevertheless, the SCP has identified that the legislation of many countries provides
some or all of the following exceptions and limitations to patent rights:

(i) Private and/or non commercial use;

(ii) Experimental use and/or scientific research;

(iii) Extemporaneous preparation of medicines;

(iv) Prior use;

(v) Use of articles on foreign vessels, aircrafts and land vehicles;

(vi) Acts for obtaining regulatory approval from authorities;

(vii) Exhaustion of patent rights;

(viii) Compulsory licensing and/or government use; and

(ix) Certain use of patented inventions by farmers and breeders.

2) SCP Discussions on Transfer of Technology

Given the importance of innovation to technological, social and economic development

of countries, the generation, transfer and diffusion of innovative technology at both
national and international levels has been widely recognized as a major element to be
taken into account in designing development policies. In that context, the role of
the patent system and its effects on technology transfer are under continuous discussions
in the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP).

The dissemination and transfer of technology is a major pillar that supports the raison
d’être of the patent system. By granting exclusive rights, the patent system aims to
improve the efficient flow of knowledge and to facilitate transactions in protected
technology.

The patent system sets up a legal framework that allows technology holders to disclose
their inventions to the public and license or sell their patents, without fear of free-riding.
A wider group of researchers and engineers who access the disclosed knowledge may, in
turn, further contribute to the development of the technology concerned.

The possibility of defining ownership and a clear boundary of rights facilitates the
transfer of technology protected by patents. While the process of transferring technology
is complex and influenced by a number of factors, such as political and market
environments, human resources and infrastructure, policy makers also adjust various
mechanisms built into the patent system to provide a framework that supports transfer of
technology at the national and international level.

Activities

1) Many activities relating to patents undertaken by WIPO do not specifically address

technology transfer. Nevertheless, they may be relevant to the topic, since the promotion
of technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology are widely
recognized to be the general objectives of the patent system. In a way, all efforts to
improve the patent system have a positive impact, either directly or indirectly, on the
contribution of the patent system to transfer of technology, whether it is through the
development of legal and institutional frameworks, technological infrastructure and tools,
capacity building or through raising awareness.

2) For example, a high predictability in terms of the validity of granted patents, sufficient
disclosure of inventions in patent applications, or an adequate scope of protection with
the necessary exceptions and limitations are some essential elements for the patent
system to fulfill its objectives also in terms of innovation and transfer of technology. An
improved infrastructure for accessing patent information and improved technical
infrastructure of patent offices increase an efficient dissemination of technological and
legal information necessary for technology transfer, such as, for example, who owns
which technology in which country for which duration. In order to ensure the quality of
patents and enforcement of law and to promote sound negotiation between technology
holders and potential technology users, the capacity of patent offices, patent examiners,
judges, enforcement officers and patent professionals, such as patent attorneys, needs to
be constantly enhanced so that they are in possession of the necessary knowledge and
skills in a fast-moving economy. Therefore, it is worth briefly mentioning those general
activities relating to patents carried out by WIPO, insofar as they may be relevant to
transfer of technology.

3) The well functioning of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) as an international patent
filing system is important for the international patent system in all fields of technology.
Due to its global reach, the timeliness and quality of international work products under
the PCT, such as the publication of PCT international applications and the preparation of
international search reports, written opinions and international preliminary examination
reports, often affect the quality of national and regional patent systems.

4) With respect to the development dimension of “transfer of technology”, the WIPO

Development Agenda aims to ensure that development considerations form an integral
part of WIPO’s work. Therefore, it is a cross-cutting agenda which touches upon all
activities of WIPO. Some recommendations and projects established under the
Development Agenda directly address issues regarding transfer of technology and access
to knowledge (see Section III, below).

However, many other Development Agenda recommendations may also be indirectly

related to transfer of technology. For example, many recommendations address the
following issues: (i) the promotion of a fair balance between intellectual property
protection and the public SCP/18/7 page 3 interest; (ii) consideration of the special needs
of developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs); and (iii) flexibilities in
international intellectual property agreements, which should support the development
goals agreed within the United Nations system, including those contained in the
Millennium Declaration.

5) Further, technical assistance and capacity building in patent-related areas, such as

legislative advice and training of government officers and other stakeholders, are also
part of the core activities of WIPO. A number of educational programs for enhancing the
understanding of intellectual property issues, for example, summer schools, distance
learning courses and Master programs, are also conducted by WIPO.

6). Published patents (and applications) as well as information associated with those
documents, are an important source of valuable information that links potential
technology transferors and transferees. With a view to facilitating access, retrieval, use
 and dissemination of patent information, the International Patent Classification (IPC) and
WIPO standards have been constantly reviewed and developed by the relevant WIPO
bodies. Further, information and communication technology (ICT) has created
opportunities for a more effective access to the output of the patent system. In this regard,
WIPO develops global IP databases and facilitates access to technology databases, assists
modernization of ICT infrastructure of patent offices and digitization of patent collections
and supports capacity building to facilitate the use of various patent information tools.

7). Lastly, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center offers alternative dispute
resolution options for the resolution of international commercial disputes between private
parties. Such mechanisms have been used to solve disputes in patent licensing, research a

3) Quality of patents

Quality is an essential aspect of the patent system to ensure that it serves its purpose of
promoting innovation, contributing to dissemination and transfer of technology and
fostering technological, social and economic development of the country concerned.
Errors in patent grant and administration procedures can cause legal uncertainty and
increase costs for all users of the patent system: rights-holders, competitors, users of
patent information and the patent Offices themselves.

Consequently, various mechanisms have been built into the patent system, and additional
measures have been developed by the Offices, to ensure that patent protection is only
granted to inventions which fully comply with national legal requirements for
patentability, and that grants are made in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Search and
examination, third party observation and opposition mechanisms, among others, are
examples of quality-related measures built into the system. In addition, practical
guidelines for patent office employees and their training programs, codes of conduct for
patent applicants, and quality control and quality management systems have been
instituted by many Offices. Owing to the increased internationalization of patent filings,
the SCP is exploring ways to improve the quality of patents globally.

4) Opposition and Administrative Revocation Mechanisms

National and regional laws provide opposition and other administrative revocation and
invalidation mechanisms that make it possible for third parties to intervene in the patent
examination process before the grant of a patent, or to challenge a patent after its grant.

While the design of such mechanisms may differ from one country/region to another, the
common objective is to provide a simple, quick and inexpensive means to increase patent
quality by providing additional input to the process. These mechanisms also provide an
alternative to potentially lengthy and costly judicial proceedings.
The most common mechanisms are:

1) Opposition Systems

Many countries provide opposition mechanisms in their patent systems. Opposition

systems stricto sensu offer third parties an opportunity to oppose the grant of a patent
within a certain period of time provided by the applicable law.

An opponent must allege at least one of the grounds for opposition among those that are
prescribed in the applicable law. Opposition procedures are closely related to the patent
granting procedure. An opposition may be requested soon before the grant of a patent
(pre-grant opposition) or after the grant of a patent (post-grant opposition).

In some countries, an opposition may be filed pre-grant, within a certain time period
immediately after the publication of the application for a patent and before the
examination phase, in which case the procedure resembles, to a certain extent, the so-
called third party observation system. It is possible to combine pre-grant and post-grant
opposition systems. India, for example, provides both a pre-grant and a post-grant
opposition system. One of the main objectives of the opposition system is to provide a
simple, quick and inexpensive mechanism that ensures the quality and validity of granted
patents by allowing an early rectification of invalid patents. In general, opposition
proceedings are inter partes procedures conducted before the patent office, not a court.

Pre-grant opposition often starts once the examination of a patent application has been
completed by a positive result. The Office publishes its intention to grant the patent on
the claimed invention contained in the application, and provides a certain time period
during which an opposition can be filed. The opponent shall state the grounds for
opposition and submit any evidence. If no opposition is filed during that period, the
patent will be granted. If an opposition is filed, the applicant will be notified of that fact,
together with the grounds for opposition and the evidence (for example, prior art
documents that demonstrate lack of inventive step). The applicant will be given the
opportunity to comply with the requirements under the applicable law, and to make
observations, within the prescribed time limit. In accordance with the applicable law, the
opponent has the possibility to respond to the observations made by the applicant. Based
on the submissions by the opponent and the applicant, an examiner or any other person
entrusted to decide on opposition cases under the applicable law will make a decision as
to whether the patent shall be granted or not.

In some countries, the pre-grant opposition system is designed in such a way that it starts
after the publication of the patent application and before substantive examination. Once
the patent application is published, an opposition may be filed within a certain time
period prescribed under the applicable law. The opponent shall state the grounds for
opposition and submit any evidence. If no opposition is filed during that period, the
substantive examination will be carried out. If an opposition is filed, the applicant will be
notified, and given an opportunity to make observations and/or amend the application
within the prescribed time period. The conclusion of the opposition will be notified to
both the applicant and the opponent.

Post-grant opposition starts once the patent is granted. Once the fact that a patent has
been granted is published, an opposition may be filed with evidence within a certain time
period prescribed in the applicable law. Similar to the pre-grant opposition, the patentee
will be notified about that fact, and be given the opportunity to comply with the
requirements under the applicable law, and to make observations, within the prescribed
time limit. In accordance with the applicable law, the opponent has the possibility to
respond to the observations made by the patentee. Based on the submissions by the
opponent and the applicant, whoever is entrusted to decide on opposition cases under the
applicable law will make a decision as to whether the patent shall be maintained,
amended or revoked.

Since one of the objectives of the opposition system is to provide a simple mechanism to
ensure the quality and validity of granted patents, procedural and substantive
requirements provided by the applicable laws regarding opposition systems have certain
common aspects. However, there are differences in the details. Some of these
differences are the following:

 the timeframe during which an opposition may be filed: the opposition period may
start immediately after the publication of the patent application, after the completion
of the substantive examination with a positive result and/or after the grant of the
patent;

 entitlement to file an opposition: in many national laws, any party, including the
applicant or the patentee, may file an opposition. However, some laws provide that
any third party (excluding the applicant or the patentee) may file an opposition;

 the threshold for opposition: in many countries the opponent has to provide full
evidence of the grounds. In one country, an opposition may be instituted if it is
“more likely than not” that the patent is invalid; with respect to admissibility, in
some countries the request has to be sufficiently substantiated, provide written
documents and other evidence while in other countries, the criteria of admissibility
are not defined in their patent laws;

 the disclosure of the identity of the requester: in some countries, it is possible for the
opponent, the true party in interest, not to disclose his identity, which may be in favor
of continuing good business relationship between the opponent and the patent
applicant or patentee;
 the length of the opposition period: the length of the opposition period varies from
country to country. In many countries, the duration may vary from two to six months
for pre-grant opposition and from six to 12 months for post-grant opposition;

 the grounds for an opposition: in many countries, the requirements regarding novelty,
inventive step, industrial applicability, sufficiency of disclosure and addition of new
matter going beyond the original disclosure are grounds for an opposition.
Non-compliance with the requirements concerning the exclusions from patentable
subject matter also forms part of the grounds for an opposition in many countries.
Some countries accept an opposition on the grounds that an applicant/patentee is not
entitled to the right to a patent, or on other grounds covering all requirements that
should be fulfilled to obtain a patent. They include, for example, the fact that
information regarding corresponding foreign applications was not submitted, the
source or geographical origin of biological material used in the invention was not
disclosed, or the essential formalities were not complied with;

 reviewing officers: the opposition may be conducted by an examination division or

the proceedings may be held before a special opposition board; the board may
include technical and legal examiners or judges;

 inter partes procedural requirements: formal and procedural requirements relating to,
for example, a request, notification to parties, arguments, evidence, oral hearing and
final decision depends on the applicable law, most likely based on the general civil
procedural law of each country;

 opposition fee: in many countries, the payment of an opposition fee is required to file
an opposition;

 the effect of the opposition on civil actions: in some countries the opposition has an
estoppel effect or an effect for civil proceedings to stay. In other countries both
administrative and civil proceedings could be pursued independently and in parallel;
and

 the timeframe for an opposition: in one country the final determination has to be
issued within one year, extendable up to six months; in many countries, no time
limits for a final administrative decision is specified.

An appeal against the final decision of the opposition body is generally possible,
often to a court. It should be noted that, according to Article 62.5 of the TRIPS
Agreement, final administrative decisions in procedures concerning the acquisition
and maintenance of intellectual property rights as well as the administrative
revocation and inter partes procedures shall be subject to review by a judicial or
quasi-judicial authority.
 In a larger sense, the opposition system is complemented by related mechanisms
which allow third parties to intervene in the patent examination process before the
grant of a patent or to challenge the grant of a patent after its grant. Those
mechanisms are similar to the opposition system, but may differ in some criteria from
the opposition system stricto sensu, which is a inter partes, time-bound review
systems.

2) Re-examination Systems

A re-examination is a proceeding conducted by the patent office after the grant of a

patent in which the validity of a patent is re-examined at the request of the patentee or
third party, as provided by the applicable law.

In some countries, a re-examination system is provided as an alternative or complement

to the opposition system. In comparison to the opposition system, in general, the
re-examination is not time-bound and can be requested during the lifetime of the patent.
In some countries the re-examination is conducted by a single examiner or the division of
the patent office which has granted the patent in the first place, in comparison to a full
opposition board in the cases of post-grant oppositions.

The re-examination procedures are conducted ex parte in some countries (largely without
the participation of the requester in the conduct of the re-examination) and inter partes in
some other countries (with greater participation of the requester in the re-examination
process). The ex parte re-examination is often characterized as a system that provides for
quality check through a second patent examination of the patent by the patent office.

The inter partes re-examination in certain countries may resemble to administrative

revocation or invalidation mechanisms in some other countries in the sense that both
provide for a wide range of substantive grounds and inter partes proceedings which allow
third parties to challenge a patent before an administrative body. However, the
proceedings of the inter partes re-examination are generally more conducted as a second
examination by the patent office itself than as a full inter partes administrative review by
a specialized board.

In general, the re-examination may be requested mainly on the basis of documentary

evidence, and an opportunity to appeal against the re-examination decision is generally
possible.

The re-examination system often has an estoppel effect, as the requester of re-
examination is, in most countries, estopped from basing judicial review on the same
grounds as the re-examination.
Depending on the expected role of the re-examination system in the entire review
mechanisms placed in the national patent system, procedural as well as substantive
requirements regarding the re-examination are different from one country to another.

3) Administrative Revocation and Invalidation Mechanisms

The administrative revocation and invalidation mechanisms provide for an inter

partes review of the validity of a patent which is not limited to a certain period after the
grant of the patent. Even though the administrative review has quasi-judicial elements in
some countries, the procedure is different from a judicial review, which is, in general,
initiated by only interested parties, fully adversarial and entirely court-based. In many
countries, similar to the opposition proceedings, any person, not limited to an interested
party, could request an administrative review.

In general, the administrative review constitutes a forum outside a court, composed of a

panel of experienced examiners and/or administrative judges, for reviewing the validity
of a patent. It allows for reviewing the patent on grounds which might render a patent
invalid, most importantly, non-compliance with the substantive patentability criteria.
Mechanisms for administrative revocation and invalidation are conducted inter partes,
similar to the opposition, but they are generally not time-bound. In several countries, an
administrative review may be initiated and conducted ex officio.

While post-grant opposition systems provide third parties to challenge patents at the
administrative level, since the opposition period is limited, there could be cases where
third parties recognize the needs of invalidating a patent only after the expiration of the
opposition period. It is often the case where the technology surrounding a patented
invention is developed and commercialized only some years after the grant of the patent,
and at that point, the validity of the patent calls attention of competitors. The
administrative review provides for a longer or a second window of challenging patents
for anyone. In some countries, the administrative revocation and invalidation is the
only inter partes mechanism to challenge the validity of patents before the administrative
body, such as in China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom.

Among the countries that have an administrative review mechanism, the procedural and
substantive requirements have some common aspects, but are different in details. Such
differences may include:

 the possibility of ex officio proceedings;

 the onus of evidence for the person requesting the revocation;

 the grounds for revocation;

 the conduct of the review procedure;

 the possibility to make a revocation/invalidation request after the expiry of the life
time of the patent;

 the standard for providing evidence; and

 the composition of the reviewing board.

4) Submission of Information by Third Parties

Many patent offices provide the opportunity for third parties to submit prior art
documents, such as published patent applications and patents or other publications, which
they believe are relevant to the determination of patentability of the claimed invention.

In countries where a patent application is published before the grant of the patent, third
parties are in a position to analyze the claimed invention contained in the published
patent application before the grant of the patent or the refusal of the patent application.
In order to assist a substantive examiner to examine the patentability of the claimed
invention, in some countries, third parties may submit prior art information which is
relevant to such determination of patentability. In general, the fact that information is
submitted by a third party and the content of such information are made available to the
public.

While the objective of such mechanism is, in general similar to the pre-grant opposition
system in that it aims to increase the validity of granted patents through contributions
from third parties, the third party observation system, however, is different from the pre-
grant opposition system in many aspects, although it varies from one country to the
other.

The main difference lies in the fact that it is an ex parte procedure under which the third
party who submitted the information cannot participate in the subsequent examination or
review procedure. Further, the submission of the relevant information does not trigger
any specific review process (although an examiner may take into account the submitted
information, if appropriate), and the information will be simply included in the file which
can be consulted by the public. In many countries, there is no time limit for third parties
to submit relevant information. The anonymous submission of information is allowed in
certain countries. This could help third parties to submit prior art information even if
they have business relationship with the applicant and therefore, are unwilling to disclose
their identities. Further, in some countries, the grounds for the submission of information
may be limited by certain requirements. In general, the submission of third party
 observations is not subject to payment of fees. In some countries, fees are required if the
observations are voluminous.

Theoretically, it is possible to introduce such a system in a patent office that does not
conduct substantive examination. The prior art information submitted by a third party
will be made available to the public upon the publication of the patent, and it can be used
by any party during the post-grant revocation proceedings. For that reason, in some
countries, third parties may also submit prior art information to the patent office anytime
during the post-grant phase. The submitted information will be included in the official
file (dossier) which is accessible to the public. In some countries, it is possible to submit,
in addition to the prior art documents or the reference thereof, a comment on the
relevance of each document submitted. In other countries, it is possible to file a protest.

The submission of information relevant to patentability by third parties is a simple,

inexpensive (often free of charge) and informal way to publicly question the validity of a
patent. In contrast to the pre-grant opposition, after a positive determination by the
examiner, the submission of observations does not have the effect of suspending the
process. On the other hand, due to its informal and ex parte nature, the submitter of the
information cannot participate in and influence the review process. Whether the
information submitted would be fully considered during the review process largely
depends on the examiner who conducts the substantive examination. In most countries
the third party submitting the information does not receive any feedback as to how the
material is used in the examination process.

In general, the differences in the design of various third party observation systems relate
to:

 period for submitting observations;

 conduct of procedure: notification to the applicant, possibility of comments or

counter-arguments by the applicant, public disclosure of observations, feedback to
requester;

 grounds for observations: documents and information to be submitted; and

 fees.

5) Confidentiality of Patent Advisors’ Communications

It is widely recognized that protecting the confidentiality of professional advice from

patent advisors* to their clients promotes frank and open communications necessary to
high quality advice. Consequently, most countries, under both civil law and common law
 traditions, ensure confidentiality of such advice either through contractual arrangements
between patent advisors and their clients, codes of conduct set by professional
associations, or pursuant to laws or regulations. In some common law countries, the
confidentiality of communications between the client and patent advisor is protected by a
specific “privilege” against discovery, while in some civil law countries, a patent advisor
might be entitled to the right to refuse to testify in court on a matter falling under the
professional secrecy obligation.

As patent protection is increasingly international, cross-border issues of confidentiality of

communications between clients and their patent advisors arise, raising the question of
whether and to what extent confidentiality of communications between a client and his
patent advisor should be maintained in court proceedings in other jurisdictions and how
the confidentiality could be preserved beyond national borders. The SCP has been
working on this issue, focusing on cross-border aspects of confidentiality of
communications between clients and patent advisors.

6) Topics and issues: patents and health

Policy-makers have to find the right balance between the rights of patent holders who
produce medical innovations, and the public who need access to them.

Efforts have been made to identify legal frameworks and practices under the patent
system, which adequately balance incentives to innovate with access to health-related
technology. Any such framework must take into account the interests of both technology
holders and technology users.

The complexities involved with health innovation and access to medicines, however,
require a holistic understanding of synergies between the patent system and other policy
components. The interplay between trade policy, public health policy, procurement
policy, the regulatory environment, innovation policy and intellectual property strategy,
the market environment and other factors are critical to an understanding of patents and
health.

In order to address these challenges, the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of
Patents (SCP) examines the role of the patent system in striking the right balance between
innovation and technology access.
2.3 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks,
Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT):

The SCT was created in 1998 to serve as a forum to discuss issues, facilitate coordination
and provide guidance on the progressive development of international law
on trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications, including the harmonization
of national laws and procedures.

So far, this committee discussed many issues of importance for making uniform the
international practice and international positive law of distinctive signs, Among other things,
in the framework of this committee, issues were discussed regarding the protection of well
known trademarks, protection of trademarks on Internet, licenses in trademark law,
protection of nontraditional trademarks, opposition procedure, implementation of article 6 of
the Paris Convention, etc. One of the important achievements of this committee is passing
recommendations on the use of trademarks and other distinctive signs on Internet. (Joint
Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks).

Participation in the SCT is open to all member states of WIPO or the Paris Union for the
Protection of Industrial Property as members. A special rule of procedure extends
membership without the right to vote to the European Union. In addition, member states of
the United Nations that are not members of WIPO or the Paris Union, intergovernmental
organizations, and non-governmental organizations accredited with observer status at
WIPO may participate in the Committee in an observer capacity.

2.3.1 Trademarks

What is a Trademark?
A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from
those of other enterprises. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property rights.

How can you protect Trademark?

At the national/regional level, trademark protection can be obtained through registration, by

filing an application for registration with the national/regional trademark office and paying
the required fees. At the international level, you have two options: either you can file a
trademark application with the trademark office of each country in which you are seeking
protection, or you can use WIPO’s Madrid System.

What right does trademark registration provide?

In principle, a trademark registration will confer an exclusive right to the use of the registered
trademark. This implies that the trademark can be exclusively used by its owner, or licensed
to another party for use in return for payment. Registration provides legal certainty and
reinforces the position of the right holder, for example, in case of litigation.

How long does trademark protection last?

The term of trademark registration can vary, but is usually ten years. It can be renewed
indefinitely on payment of additional fees. Trademark rights are private rights and protection
is enforced through court orders.

What kinds of trademark can be registered?

A word or a combination of words, letters, and numerals can perfectly constitute a trademark.
But trademarks may also consist of drawings, symbols, three-dimensional features such as
the shape and packaging of goods, non-visible signs such as sounds or fragrances, or color
shades used as distinguishing features – the possibilities are almost limitless.

2.3.2 Industrial Designs

What is an industrial design?

In a legal sense, an industrial design constitutes the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an
article.

An industrial design may consist of three dimensional features, such as the shape of an
article, or two dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color.

What kind of protection does an industrial design right offer?

In principle, the owner of a registered industrial design or of a design patent has the right to
prevent third parties from making, selling or importing articles bearing or embodying a
design which is a copy, or substantially a copy, of the protected design, when such acts are
undertaken for commercial purposes.

What kind of products can benefit from industrial design protection?

Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of products of industry and handicraft items:
from packages and containers to furnishing and household goods, from lighting equipment to
jewelry, and from electronic devices to textiles. Industrial designs may also be relevant to
graphic symbols, graphical user interfaces (GUI), and logos.
How are industrial designs protected?

In most countries, an industrial design needs to be registered in order to be protected under

industrial design law as a “registered design”. In some countries, industrial designs are
protected under patent law as “design patents ”.

Industrial design laws in some countries grant – without registration – time- and scope
limited protection to so-called “unregistered industrial designs”.

Depending on the particular national law and the kind of design, industrial designs may also
be protected as works of art under copyright law

2.3.3 Geographical Indications

What is a geographical indication?

A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical
origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In order to function as a
GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given place. In addition, the qualities,
characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially due to the place of origin.
Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of production, there is a clear link
between the product and its original place of production.

Geographical Indications

What is a geographical indication?

A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical
origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In order to function as a
GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given place. In addition, the qualities,
characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially due to the place of origin.
Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of production, there is a clear link
between the product and its original place of production.

What rights does a geographical indication provide?

A geographical indication right enables those who have the right to use the indication to
prevent its use by a third party whose product does not conform to the applicable standards.
For example, in the jurisdictions in which the Darjeeling geographical indication is protected,
producers of Darjeeling tea can exclude use of the term “Darjeeling” for tea not grown in
their tea gardens or not produced according to the standards set out in the code of practice for
the geographical indication.

However, a protected geographical indication does not enable the holder to prevent someone
from making a product using the same techniques as those set out in the standards for that
indication. Protection for a geographical indication is usually obtained by acquiring a right
over the sign that constitutes the indication.

For what type of products can geographical indications be used?

Geographical indications are typically used for agricultural products, foodstuffs, wine and
spirit drinks, handicrafts, and industrial products.

How are geographical indications protected?

There are three main ways to protect a geographical indication:

 so-called sui generis systems (i.e. special regimes of protection);

 using collective or certification marks; and

 methods focusing on business practices, including administrative product approval

schemes.

These approaches involve differences with respect to important questions, such as the
conditions for protection or the scope of protection. On the other hand, two of the modes of
protection — namely sui generis systems and collective or certification mark systems —
share some common features, such as the fact that they set up rights for collective use by
those who comply with defined standards.

Broadly speaking geographical indications are protected in different countries and regional
systems through a wide variety of approaches and often using a combination of two or more
of the approaches outlined above. These approaches have been developed in accordance with
different legal traditions and within a framework of individual historical and economic
conditions.
2.3.4 Recommendation of SCT:

1) Protection of well-known marks:

The Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the
General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Taking into
account the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
relative to the protection of well-known marks; Recommend that each Member State may
consider the use of any of the provisions adopted by the Standing Committee on the Law
of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) at its second
session, second part, as guidelines for the protection for well-known marks; It is further
recommended to each Member State of the Paris Union or of WIPO which is also a
member of a regional intergovernmental organization that has competence in the area of
registration of trademarks, to bring to the attention of that organization the possibility of
protecting well-known marks in accordance, mutatis mutandis, with the provisions
contained herein.

2) Trade Mark licenses:

The Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the
General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); Taking into
account the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
and of the Trademark Law Treaty (TLT); Recommend that each Member State may
consider the use of any of the provisions adopted by the Standing Committee on the Law
of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) at its fourth
session, as guidelines concerning trademark licenses; It is further recommended to each
Member State of the Paris Union or of WIPO which is also a member of a regional
intergovernmental organization that has competence in the area of registration of
trademarks, to bring these provisions to the attention of that organization.

3) Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the

Internet:

The Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the
General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); Taking into
account the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;
Recommend that each Member State may consider the use of any of the provisions
adopted by the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and
Geographical Indications (SCT) at its sixth session, as guidelines concerning the
protection of marks, and other industrial property rights in signs, on the Internet; It is
further recommended to each Member State of the Paris Union or of WIPO which is also
a member of a regional intergovernmental organization that has competence in the area of
registration of trademarks, to bring these provisions to the attention of that organization.

2.4 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

(SCCR):

The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) was set up in the
1998-1999 biennium to examine matters of substantive law or harmonization in the field
of copyright and related rights.

The Committee is composed of all member states of WIPO and/or of the Berne Union;
and, as observers, certain member states of the United Nations (UN) which are non-
members of WIPO and/or the Berne Union, as well as a number of intergovernmental and
non-governmental organizations.

In the framework of this committee, which was established in 1998, we discuss about the
current issues in the field of copyright and related rights. This committee has given most
attention to the questions of protection of the broadcasting organizations, issues of
limitation of copyright and issues of international protection of audiovisual performances.
The question of discussing the protection of audiovisual performances was concluded in
2012 by the adoption of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, while the issue
of passing the international instrument arranging the limitation of copyright in favor of
the arrangement of limitation of copyright in favor of persons with disabilities in the use
of printed material was concluded by the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty enabling
access to published works to the blind and persons with difficulties in the use of printed
material. The issue of considering protection of various broadcasting points is still on the
agenda of the committee.

The Standing Committee formulates recommendations for consideration by the WIPO

General Assembly or a Diplomatic Conference. Copyright protection extends only to
expressions, and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts
as such. Copyright may or may not be available for a number of objects such as titles,
slogans, or logos, depending on whether they contain sufficient authorship.
2.4.1 Copyright

What is copyright?
Copyright (or author’s right) is a legal term used to describe the rights that creators have
over their literary and artistic works. Works covered by copyright range from books,
music, paintings, sculpture, and films, to computer programs, databases, advertisements,
maps, and technical drawings.

What can be protected using copyright?

Exhaustive lists of works covered by copyright are usually not to be found in legislation.
Nonetheless, broadly speaking, works commonly protected by copyright throughout the
world include:

 literary works such as novels, poems, plays, reference works, newspaper articles;

 computer programs, databases;

 films, musical compositions, and choreography;

 artistic works such as paintings, drawings, photographs, and sculpture;

 architecture; and

 advertisements, maps, and technical drawings.

Copyright protection extends only to expressions, and not to ideas, procedures, methods
of operation or mathematical concepts as such. Copyright may or may not be available
for a number of objects such as titles, slogans, or logos, depending on whether they
contain sufficient authorship.

What rights does copyright it give ? What are the rights as author of a work?

There are two types of rights under copyright:

 economic rights, which allow the rights owner to derive financial reward from the
use of their works by others; and

 moral rights, which protect the non-economic interests of the author.

Most copyright laws state that the rights owner has the economic right to authorize or
prevent certain uses in relation to a work or, in some cases, to receive remuneration
 for the use of their work (such as through collective management). The economic
rights owner of a work can prohibit or authorize:

 its reproduction in various forms, such as printed publication or sound recording;

 its public performance, such as in a play or musical work;

 its recording, for example, in the form of compact discs or DVDs;

 its broadcasting, by radio, cable or satellite;

 its translation into other languages; and

 its adaptation, such as a novel into a film screenplay.

Examples of widely recognized moral rights include the right to claim authorship of a
work and the right to oppose changes to a work that could harm the creator's
reputation.

Can you register copyright?

In the majority of countries, and according to the Berne Convention, copyright protection
is obtained automatically without the need for registration or other formalities.

Most countries nonetheless have a system in place to allow for the voluntary registration
of works. Such voluntary registration systems can help solve disputes over ownership or
creation, as well as facilitate financial transactions, sales, and the assignment and/or
transfer of rights.

2.4.2 The Committee is currently engaged in discussing:

1) Limitations and Exceptions

In order to maintain an appropriate balance between the interests of right holders and
users of protected works, copyright laws allow certain limitations on economic rights,
that is, cases in which protected works may be used without the authorization of the right
holder and with or without payment of compensation.

Limitations and exceptions to copyright are provisions, in local copyright law or Berne
Convention, which allow for copyrighted works to be used without a license from the
copyright owner.
Limitations and exceptions to copyright relate to a number of important considerations
such as market failure, freedom of speech, education and equality of access (such as by
the visually impaired). Some view limitations and exceptions as "user rights"—seeing
user rights as providing an essential balance to the rights of the copyright owners. There
is no consensus among copyright experts as to whether user rights are rights or simply
limitations on copyright.

Limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights vary from country to country
due to particular social, economic and historical conditions. International
treaties acknowledge this diversity by providing general conditions for the application of
exceptions and limitations and leaving to national legislators to decide if a particular
exception or limitation is to be applied and, if it is the case, to determine its exact scope.
Due to the development of new technologies and the ever-increasing worldwide use of
the Internet, it has been considered that the above balance between various stakeholders’
interests needs to be recalibrated.

Limitations and exceptions is an issue considered in the agenda of the WIPO Standing
Committee for Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and, recently, its debate has been
focused mainly on three groups of beneficiaries or activities in relation to exceptions and
limitations – on educational activities, on libraries and archives and on disabled persons,
particularly visually impaired persons.

I. Changing technology

The scope of copyright limitations and exceptions became a subject of societal and
political debate within various nations in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely due to
the impact of digital technology, the changes in national copyright legislations for
compliance with TRIPS, and the enactment of anti-circumvention rules in response to
the WIPO Copyright Treaty. The European People's Party concluded that international
instruments for the protection of copyright no longer seem capable of guaranteeing
creators and investors a fair return on their activities while ensuring the public’s access to
information and respect for privacy.

Defenders of copyright exceptions fear that technology, contract law undermining

copyright law and copyright law not being amended, is reducing the scope of important
exceptions and therefore harming creativity.

In May 2010 a declaration entitled Copyright for Creativity was launched, stating: "While
exclusive rights have been adapted and harmonised to meet the challenges of
the knowledge economy, copyright’s exceptions are radically out of line with the needs
of the modern information society. The lack of harmonisation of exceptions hinders the
circulation of knowledge based goods and services across Europe. The lack of flexibility
within the current European exceptions regime also prevents us from adapting to a
constantly changing technological environment." This ad-hoc coalition is being registered
at the official EU Transparency Register in the section In-house lobbyists. Coordinator of
this project runs a Brussels-based public affairs & government relations firm specialised
in the online environment, that mainly mentions Industry (a.o. Google) and Trade
Associations as its clients.

Attempts at expansion of copyright limitations and exceptions are sometimes regarded as

a threat by publishers.

II. Competition law / anti-trust law

Copyright is typically thought of as a limited, legally sanctioned monopoly. Because of

this, copyright licensing may sometimes interfere too much in free and competitive
markets. These concerns are governed by legal doctrines such as competition law in
the European Union, anti-trust law in the United States, and anti-monopoly law
in Russia and Japan. Competition issues may arise when the licensing party unfairly
leverages market power, engages in price discrimination through its licensing terms, or
otherwise uses a licensing agreement in a discriminatory or unfair manner. Attempts to
extend the copyright term granted by law – for example, by collecting royalties for use of
the work after its copyright term has expired and it has passed into the public domain –
raise such competition concerns.

In April 1995, the US published "Antitrust Guidelines for the licensing of Intellectual
Property" which apply to patents, copyright, and trade secrets. In January 1996,
the European Union published Commission Regulation No. 240/96 which applies to
patents, copyright, and other intellectual property rights, especially regarding licenses.
The guidelines apply mutatis mutandis to the extent possible.

The interplay of copyright law and competition law is increasingly important in the
digital world, as most countries' laws allow private contracts to over-ride copyright law.
Given that copyright law creates a legally sanctioned monopoly, balanced by "limitations
and exceptions" that allow access without the permission of the copyright holder the
over-riding of copyright law by private contracts can create monopoly activity. Well
known limitations and exceptions include fair dealing in the UK and Canada, as well as
the fair use doctrine in the US. The undermining of copyright law, and in particular
limitations and exceptions to copyright by contract law is an issue frequently raised by
libraries, and library groups such as International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions. As a result of this, this issue is increasingly being looked at and discussed at
a national governmental level e.g. UK as well as international level such as WIPO – as
part of the Development Agenda.

III. Fair use exceptions for libraries under Indian copyright law

Indian copyright law provides exceptions to libraries for use of copyrighted works under
the statutory fair dealing provisions of the copyright Act (section 52) as well as under the
judicially created fair use exception. Broadly the law permits use of copyrighted works
by libraries for the following purposes:

1. Research and education;

2. Instructions, teaching and training;

3. Private study;

4. Enabling access to the disabled;

5. Activities of education institution;

6. Review and criticism;

7. Searching and data mining;

8. Storage and preservation; and

9. Access to knowledge.

The fair dealing and fair use exceptions are provided under Section 52 of the Copyright
Act and have emanated from different court decision, notably the Delhi High Court
decision in The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors vs
Rameshwari Photocopy Services with respect to photocopying.

IV. Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired

This Study builds on a number of earlier studies and reports looking at the relationship
between copyright and the needs of visually impaired people who are unable to read
copyright works in the form in which they have been published. In particular, the Study
looks at what might be the appropriate balance between the interests of right holders on
the one hand, and visually impaired users of copyright works and those assisting them on
the other hand where exceptions to rights are provided, but it also looks at other possible
solutions to the copyright problems that have been identified.
The framework in international treaties and conventions relating to intellectual property
seems to permit exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people. Indeed,
exceptions seem possible with respect to a wide range of acts restricted by copyright that
might be undertaken by those making and supplying accessible copies to visually
impaired people. However, the possibility of such provision is not specifically addressed
and is not mandatory under these treaties and conventions, although it is widely accepted
that copyright laws should provide a balance between the interests of different
stakeholders. Also, especially where several different treaties and conventions need to be
considered, the conditions that might apply to exceptions is quite complicated and there
may be some doubt regarding exceptions to the adaptation right in particular.

In examining exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people in national laws, 57
countries have been found that have specific provisions that would permit activity to
assist visually impaired people unable to access the written word, or to assist people with
a print disability more generally, by making a copyright work available to them in an
accessible form. Some of the exceptions found in these countries would also permit other
types of assistance for handicapped people, and two further countries have been found
that have exceptions that would permit, amongst other things, audio description of
broadcasts. It has not been possible in this Study to consider to what extent exceptions of
other types would permit activity for the benefit of visually impaired people, such as
exceptions permitting private copying, use of copyright works for educational purposes
and those applying to activity in or by libraries,. But it seems unlikely that such
exceptions would provide a comprehensive solution to the legitimate needs of visually
impaired people unable because of copyright constraints to access the written word.

The specific exceptions found in national laws have been analysed in some detail, for
example looking at how the end beneficiary is defined, what type of copyright works can
be copied or otherwise used and by what type of organisation, whether or not activity
must be of a non-commercial nature and what type of accessible copies can be made.
The range of provision varies considerably between countries on most of the factors
considered and the variation does not generally seem to have any relationship to the
needs of visually impaired people in a particular country. A number of exceptions are
specifically qualified by a requirement to comply with a test the same as or similar to the
3-step test found in the Berne Convention. The majority of exceptions do not provide for
any remuneration to be paid to right holders for activity under the exception.

Organisations making accessible copies for visually impaired people under an exception
in one country often wish to share those copies with similar organisations in other
countries so that transcription work in one country does not need to be repeated in
another country, and the limited resources available for assisting visually impaired people
in all countries are used more efficiently. International treaties and conventions relating
to intellectual property generally permit countries to decide for themselves what
provision to make on cross-border movement of copies of copyright works made under
exceptions. The laws of both the exporting and importing country do, however, need to
be considered regarding cross-border movement of accessible copies.

One of the difficulties in deciding whether accessible copies made under an exception in
one country may be exported to another country is the lack of clarity about what types of
distribution of accessible copies are within the scope of many of the specific exceptions
to copyright for the benefit of visually impaired people. However, other aspects of the
scope of the exceptions are also likely to be relevant, such as who may act under the
exception, how to determine whether or not the requirements about the end beneficiary of
the exception are met, whether requirements that a work must have been published are
met, whether or not only copies made under the exception may be distributed in the
country and whether the same type of accessible copies in both importing and exporting
countries are permitted. In a number of countries, the interaction with more general
provisions relating to import and/or export of copies that have been made without the
authorisation of the right holder also seems to be relevant.

A number of case studies illustrate both problems arising out of copyright constraints as
well as effective solutions. These case studies show that at one end of the spectrum
problems are as much due to lack of understanding about the needs of visually impaired
people as lack of exceptions to copyright or other provision that can lead to more
accessible copies being made available. At the other end of the spectrum, that is in
countries with fairly comprehensive provision regarding the making of accessible copies
under exceptions to copyright, there may still be problems where it is desired to move
accessible copies between countries.

The difficulties in reaching licensing arrangements, both instead of or as well as

undertaking activity under exceptions to copyright, both regarding activity within a
country and movement of accessible copies across borders, are illustrated by several case
studies. Problems include long delays in getting a response, or lack of a response at all,
from right holders and there is evidence that current mechanisms cause problems for right
holders as well as organisations making accessible copies. But other case studies do
show licensing arrangements with right holders which are, or look likely to be, more
effective and which do or will complement exceptions in useful ways. It seems probable
that helpful agreements will be more likely where trust has been built up between the
relevant parties. As well as provision relating to the making and distribution of
accessible copies, licensing problems and solutions concerning the linked issue of access
to publishers’ electronic files to make the production of accessible copies easier are
covered in case studies. A final case study illustrates the advantages for visually
impaired people where stakeholders work together to try and build in accessibility to the
written word as part of the ordinary publishing process.

The Study concludes by discussing possible solutions to copyright problems to improve

access to the written word for visually impaired people. The recommendations include
the following suggestions and observations:

Collaboration between all stakeholders can help ensure that technology improves access
to the written word for visually impaired people and WIPO could help facilitate and
encourage such activity as well as help to raise awareness amongst all stakeholders about
the issues covered by the Study. The ideal is for accessibility to be built into the ordinary
publishing process.

Further debate about provision relating to exceptions in international treaties and

conventions in the intellectual property area may be desirable in the long term, and
developing countries may need further guidance about exceptions, but international
agreements relevant to the rights of disabled people may already require countries to take
the needs of disabled people into account when framing their copyright laws.

Although exceptions to copyright are unlikely to deliver full accessibility to all

publications for visually impaired people, they may nevertheless be justified, but need to
balance the interests of all stakeholders and work in ways that encourage rather than deter
more comprehensive solutions.

Self-help access to the written word by visually impaired people may be desirable under
private copying exceptions or otherwise and it would be helpful for information to be
available in every country about what is possible.

Exceptions that permit non-profit making of accessible copies by organisations assisting

visually impaired people are more useful if defined in functional terms and where they
are broadly drawn regarding type of accessible copy that may be made, but other
provision may be needed in an exception to protect the interests of right holders and
provisions should not necessarily act against right holders being entitled to a fair price for
use of their works. It might be helpful for WIPO to facilitate a discussion on the scope of
exceptions, particularly given the wide differences that currently exist in national laws.

Exceptions that provide for the import and export of accessible copies across borders
might be appropriate, but provision may be particularly complicated where countries do
not provide international exhaustion of rights, so licensing might provide a better
approach. WIPO might be able to facilitate discussions between stakeholders about
licensing.
Licensing, including collective licensing, may offer other benefits too, such as secure
access to publishers’ e-files, and legislative changes may be better if they support and
encourage a trusted environment where licensing can be developed. Standard permission
requests and licence agreements may benefit right holders as well as non-profit bodies,
such as libraries for the blind, producing accessible formats.

Conflict between the use of DRMs and exceptions to copyright may be best explored
further by looking at specific exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people,
building on earlier work initiated by WIPO.

2) Broadcasting Organizations

The updating of the international protection of broadcasting organizations has been

discussed at length at the WIPO in the ambit of the Standing Committee on Copyright
and Related Rights (SCCR). The issue at stake is to update the protection of broadcasting
organizations, which are holders of related rights, in response to the digital and other new
technologies and the growing use of the Internet.

Important developments in technology and marketplace have taken place in the

broadcasting sector since the adoption of the Rome Convention in 1961. The process was
initiated at the WIPO Worldwide Symposium on Broadcasters’ Rights which was held in
Manila in 1997.

Broadcasting Organization Activities and the Rome Convention

(a) Broadcasting and Technology

1. Since broadcasting emerged as radio broadcasting in the first decade of the 20th
century and television broadcasting became widespread in the 1950s and 1960s, it
underwent important changes as regards the production, dissemination and consumption
of programs. Still, in the 1960s broadcasting was technically limited to analog radio and
television services provided over the air from terrestrial transmitters, and due to spectrum
constraints, the number of channels was limited.

2. What might be considered the main features of broadcasting have since then to
some extent remained unchanged. The main operation that is performed by a
broadcasting service consists in sending a stream of signals containing images and/or
sounds for reception by the public at large. Broadcasting is not confronted with any
inherent limitation as to the number of receivers within a given geographical area covered
by the radio waves concerned. One transmitter can reach an audience of 2,000 or
2,000,000 for almost the same technical costs (point to multipoint; see Annex I). The
marginal cost to the broadcasting organization of extra listeners or viewers is effectively
zero.

(b) Economic Features of Broadcasting Organizations

3. The broadcasting market is today essentially composed of two main categories of

operators. The first one consists of broadcasting organizations that finance their activities
through advertising or license fees. Their broadcasting is usually non-encrypted. The
other model consists of television by subscription, essentially pay television companies.

4. The two main features of pay-TV relate to the controlled access to the program
and the payment of the subscriber. The success of the major pay-TV channels has been
founded on their exclusive licensing, on a geographical basis and for a limited period of
time, of the rights in certain programs. The major part of these programs is made of
films, news, and sports coverage which provide high audience figures. Sports, in
particular, is a sector where there is often only one exclusive licensee for each country.
(While the term “sports rights” is often used, such transmissions are in certain countries
subject to contract protection, rather than copyright.)

(c) The Legal Framework Applicable to Broadcasting

5. The general legal framework applicable to radio and television broadcasting

reflected the technological environment and more specifically the facts that broadcasting
was expensive and, due to the shortage of Hertzian frequencies, limited to few players.
Therefore, in general, a small number of generalized channels developed in each country.
Until t

he advent of broadcasting by satellite, television broadcasting was essentially limited by

national boundaries. Programs served mainly the general public interest, especially in
providing useful information and discussion of issues in a public forum, and much
broadcasting is still today operated as a public service. Due to the restrictions in
available frequencies used for over-the-air broadcasting and cable access, the possibility
for broadcasting organizations to offer specialized targeted channels (known as niche
channel programs) was for many years almost non-existent.

6. The legal framework applicable to broadcasting was normally specific and well
defined. In most countries the broadcasting sector was, and it remains today, extensively
regulated. The rules to which broadcasting organizations are subject range from the
license required for the activity as such, procedures for the allocation of frequencies,
rules relating to the public mandate, regulation of the content itself like language quotas,
local cultural content, or rules for the protection of young people.

7. Rights granted to broadcasting organizations were also limited. Until 1961, such
rights were essentially granted at the national level, and not all countries provided for
such protection. At the international level, the main rights granted to broadcasting
organizations were laid down in the International Convention for the Protection of
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (the Rome
Convention), which was adopted on October 26, 1961. It came into force on May 18,
1964, and as of March 27, 2002, 68 countries were party to it.

8. The Rome Convention reflects the technological development of the time when it
was negotiated. It defines broadcasting as “the transmission by wireless means for public
reception of sounds, or of images and sounds” (Article 3(f)) and thereby confines
broadcasting to over the air transmissions, excluding coverage for cable transmissions.
Protection for cable transmissions has, however, in a number of countries been granted at
the national level. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rome Convention lay down the minimum
rights for broadcasting organizations and ensures the exclusive right to authorize or
prohibit a number of activities in the realm of broadcasting.

9. The minimum rights granted to broadcasting organizations under the Rome

Convention are the rights to authorize or prohibit: (a) the re-broadcasting of their
broadcasts; (b) the fixation of their broadcasts; (c) the reproduction of fixations of their
broadcasts; and (d) the communication to the public of television broadcasts if such
communication is made in places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance
fee. The right of reproduction, however, applies only to reproduction of fixations that are
either made without their consent, or made in accordance with the provisions of
Article 15 (that is, the exceptions and limitations permitted under the Convention). In the
latter case, however, the reproduction must be made for purposes different from those
referred to in those provisions. As regards the right of communication to the public, the
Article 13(d) states that it shall be a matter for the domestic law of the State where
protection of that right is claimed to determine the conditions under which it may be
exercised. Article 16(1)(b) further allows a Contracting State to declare that it will not
apply Article 13(d) at all. In that case, the other Contracting States are not obliged to
grant that right to broadcasting organizations whose headquarters are in that State.

Article 14 states that the term of protection shall last at least until the end of a period of
twenty years computed from the end of the year in which the broadcast took place.

10. The Rome Convention allows for exceptions and limitations in respect of:
(a) private use; (b) use of short excerpts in connection with the reporting of current
events; (c) ephemeral fixation by a broadcasting organization by means of its own
facilities and for its own broadcasts; and (d) use solely for the purposes of teaching or
scientific research. In addition, Contracting States may apply the same kind of
limitations as they provide for in connection with the protection of copyright in literary
and artistic works, however with the reservation that compulsory licenses may be
provided for only to the extent to which they are compatible with the Convention
(Article 15).

11. Which type of organizations is protected as broadcasting organizations under the

1961 Rome Convention is not expressly clarified. Although there is no definition in that
Convention of “broadcasting organization,” it was and is generally accepted that these are
organizations which provide their broadcasting services to the general public over
Hertzian (wireless) waves.

(d) Signal, Content and Program

12. The object of the protection under Article 13 of the Rome Convention,
“broadcasts” is not defined in the Convention but from the definition of “broadcasting” in
Article 3(f), it appears that it is the signals constituting the wireless transmission of
images and/or sounds. Accordingly, the object of the protection is the signals themselves
and not to the content of what they transmit.

13. Broadcasting is sometimes referred to as a “point to multipoint” technology which

means it is a process in which the same signal flows, or is transferred, from a single
origin to multiple consumers. That signal should arrive at all the endpoints at roughly the
same time. In this case the network links always end at a number of different points.
This process is different from “point to point” transmissions which are delivered to
consumers individually (see Annex I).

14. During the discussions in the Standing Committee, it has generally been indicated
that protection should be granted to broadcasting organizations for their signals
independently of the copyright and related rights protection of the content. Theoretically
it is possible to separate the signals from the content, which they carry. However, in
practice, that distinction is almost impossible. Pirates are mainly interested in the content
which is carried by the signals, but it should be recalled that copyright law does not
protect all content and pirates can also be interested in signals carrying unprotected
content.
Issues to be Considered Broadcasting Organization

(a) Broadcasting and Piracy

15. As a result of the huge investments and costs involved in broadcasting and the
enormous marketing revenues generated because of the massive appeal of television
programs, not to mention the rise of new recording and transmission technology,
broadcasting piracy has become a main problem (as illustrated in Annex II). In the
digital environment, piracy is a severe threat since a digital signal, once received, can be
perfectly cloned and reproduced (pirates are able to obtain perfect digital copies of
broadcast programs from which multiple copies and Internet downloadable copies can be
made and redistributed). Transmission of broadcasts over the Internet are also vulnerable
to piracy because of the ease with which contents can be accessed and copied. Large
segments of the public have access to broadcasting services, and at the same time
copying devices have become cheap and commonplace.

16. Piracy also affects the market for encrypted transmissions. Broadcasting
organizations make use of encryption systems so that only the viewers they authorize can
access the programming. Audiovisual pirates analyze (“crack”) the encryption systems
and manufacture and distribute unauthorized decoders, black boxes and smart cards. This
practice is widespread both in developed and developing countries, and the use and
illegal distribution of decoding devices have proliferated.

(b) Program-Carrying Signals

17. The notion of “program-carrying signal” relates to the issue of “signal theft.” The
pre-broadcast program-carrying signal can be described as the electronic signal carrying
program material which is sent via a telecommunications link to a broadcasting
organization for use in its broadcasts. Such signals are intended not for reception by the
public, but for use by broadcasting organizations in their broadcasts. Therefore, they are
not broadcasting, but a point to point transmission (see Annex II) by telecommunications
links from the site of an event (sports, news or cultural) to one or more national and/or
foreign broadcasting organizations for the purpose of enabling the latter’s broadcasting of
the event. A broadcasting network (or program syndicator) also sends such signals, for
example, to its affiliated broadcast stations.

18. Pirates can intercept the signals, with their content, either at the stage of the
pre-broadcast transmission, for example, off a satellite (see Annex II), or at the stage of
the actual broadcast. Since pre-broadcast signals are often digital, pirates are able to
obtain perfect digital clones of the program-carrying signals and content from which
multiple streams, copies, downloads or rebroadcasting can be made. There are also cases
where pirates have disseminated the pre-broadcast signals and related content
simultaneously, before the time when the receiving broadcasting organization had
scheduled its, delayed, broadcast. For example, instances have been reported where
programming has been taken off a United States of America network East Coast feed and
streamed over the Internet before it was broadcast on the West Coast.

19. The 1974 Brussels Satellites Convention addresses the question of protection of
pre-broadcast program-carrying satellite signals by obliging Contracting States to
undertake adequate measures against their unauthorized distribution, but leaving it open
whether it should be under public or private law. Among the possible measures is a
specific right for broadcasting organizations to take direct action, particularly by means
of exclusive rights under copyright or related rights legislation. Another possible means
is telecommunications law, in which case normally a telecommunications authority will
take action to protect the secrecy of the signals.

(c) The Object of Protection

20. Some of the developments described above have already been dealt with in other
contexts, such as for instance, satellite broadcasting and certain use of encrypted signals,
which are included in the definition of “broadcasting” in Article 2(f) of the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Questions remain, however, whether
that definition of broadcasting, which refers only to wireless transmission, remains
sufficient in the light of the present technological realities, or whether certain forms of
wire transmission should be included in the definition of broadcasting or be defined or
described separately and assimilated to broadcasting. In this connection, depending on
the outcome of the discussions in the Standing Committee it might also be considered
whether certain cases of transmissions which in general should not be considered or
assimilated to broadcasting still might be assimilated such as for example, simulcasting.
Such questions have been raised regarding programs which are not transmitted over the
air, but directly through cable systems over the Internet. Conclusions to be reached in
this respect may influence both the definitions in a possible international instrument, and
the protection granted by it.

21. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS

Agreement) does not contain any definitions relating to broadcasting, but it vests in
broadcasting organizations rights to prohibit certain acts relating to their broadcasts.
These acts are: the fixation; the reproduction of fixations; and the rebroadcasting by
wireless means of broadcasts; as well as the communication to the public of television
broadcasts of the same. Where Members do not grant such rights to broadcasting
organizations, they shall provide owners of copyright in the subject matter of broadcasts
with the possibility of preventing the above acts, subject to the provisions of the Berne
Convention.
22. Elements, which might be useful in the definition and determination of the object
of protection, could be, apart from whether the signal is delivered with or without wire:

 whether the transmission is a process initiated by the receiving person or whether it is

sent according to a schedule determined by the broadcasting or transmitting
organization;

 whether access to the transmission, even if it is sent according to such a schedule,

needs to be made specifically by the receiving person through a server or similar
intermediary device (as in Internet streaming); and

 whether the transmission is made “point to point” (as in an Internet transmission) or

“point to multipoint” as in “traditional” broadcasting.

 Whether a given transmission is to be regarded in the context of the current

discussions as restricted to “signals” or to “program-carrying signals.”

23. It might also be considered whether the limitation of the definition of

“broadcasting” in the Rome Convention and the WPPT to cover only transmission of
“sounds or of images and sounds [or of the representations thereof]” is still adequate.

24. In connection with the object of protection it may also be recalled that in a
memorandum prepared by the WIPO Secretariat for the first session of the Standing
Committee “Existing International, Regional and National Legislation concerning the
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations” (document SCCR/1/3 of
September 7, 1998) it was pointed out that a number of countries do not grant related
rights for broadcasting organizations, but include broadcasts as a category of works,
protected under copyright (paragraph 36). Among those countries, some appear to
protect the program content rather than the emitted signal, while others appear to protect
the signal, rather than the content (paragraph 39). The proposals submitted by
Governments to the Standing Committee all appear to be based on a related rights
protection linked to the broadcast signal, rather than the protection of the program
contents under copyright.

25. Another issue which has been raised in the Standing Committee is the possible
protection of pre-broadcast signals, that is, signals transporting programs to broadcasters
for simultaneous or deferred use. The questions are whether such signals should be
protected and, if so, how such signals should be defined, particularly in the case where
the broadcast is not simultaneous. Presently, such “program carrying signals” are
protected under the 1974 Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of
Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (the Brussels Convention) which,
among others, contains the following definitions:

“For the purposes of this Convention:

(i) ‘signal’ is an electronically-generated carrier capable of transmitting programmes;

(ii) ‘programme’ is a body of live or recorded material consisting of images, sounds

or both, embodied in signals emitted for the purpose of ultimate distribution;

(iii) ‘satellite’ is any device in extraterrestrial space capable of transmitting signals;

(iv) ‘emitted signal’ or ‘signal emitted’ is any programme-carrying signal that goes to
or passes through a satellite;

(vii) ‘distributor’ is the person or legal entity that decides that the transmission of the
derived signals to the general public or any section thereof should take place;

(d) The Subject of Protection

26. As traditional broadcasting has developed a number of other services, a number of

new players have become involved in the transmission of both traditional broadcasts and,
in particular, of new types of services and programs. In terms of size and character the
traditional and new are very different, spanning from large national broadcasting
corporations operating under well-defined rules to private individuals operating in the
absence of rules.

27. Both the Rome Convention and the WPPT define the term “broadcasting,” which
in its turn is part of the concept “broadcasting organization” used by those Treaties.

28. The Brussels Convention contains, among others, the following definition:

“For the purposes of this Convention:

(i) ‘signal’ is an electronically-generated carrier capable of transmitting programmes;

(ii) ‘programme’ is a body of live or recorded material consisting of images, sounds or

both, embodied in signals emitted for the purpose of ultimate distribution;

(iv) ‘emitted signal’ or ‘signal emitted’ is any programme-carrying signal that goes to or
passes through a satellite;

(vi) ‘originating organization’ is the person or legal entity that decides what programme
the emitted signals will carry;
 (vii) ‘distributor’ is the person or legal entity that decides that the transmission of the
derived signals to the general public or any section thereof should take place;

(viii) ‘distribution’ is the operation by which a distributor transmits derived signals to the
general public or any section thereof.”

29. Under the ITU Radio Regulations a “broadcasting service” is defined as a service
in which the transmissions via Hertzian waves (i.e., electromagnetic waves of frequencies
propagated in space without artificial guide) are intended for direct reception by the
general public. The Radio Regulations apply to both sound radio and television.

30. Under international copyright and related rights treaties the word “broadcasting”
generally has been understood as transmission via Hertzian waves. A certain number of
national copyright laws give providers of cable-originated programs, who do not merely
distribute broadcasts simultaneously and unchanged, rights similar to those granted to
broadcasting organizations, insofar as they are considered organizations which are
analogous to broadcasting organizations, that is, offering program services for reception
by the public at large.

31. It does not appear that any national copyright law gives express recognition of, or
protection to, webcasters as broadcasting organizations. Webcasting is described above,
but there is no established legal definition of webcasting or of a webcaster, and the term
may be understood as applying to any type of a number of different kinds of services over
the web which might have varying degrees of interactivity and pre-programming of the
content. Therefore, to the extent the Standing Committee might wish to include
webcasting under a possible international instrument, an appropriate definition would
have to be formulated.

(e) The Scope of Protection

32. As regards the scope of protection, this issue will, as indicated in paragraph 5,
above, not be discussed in this paper. Reference is made to paragraphs 14, 75 and 79,
above, where the minimum rights for the object of protection under the Rome
Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the Satellites Convention, respectively, are
described. In addition, reference is made to the proposals submitted by Governments to
the Standing Committee.
2.5 Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS):

The CWS is the collaborative international forum for discussing and reaching agreement
on WIPO Standards, including their revision and development. It also deals with other matters
relating to industrial property information and documentation.
The Committee was created by WIPO member states at the General Assembly held in 2009 and
it currently meets annually.

2.5.1 Why use WIPO Standards?

Using agreed terminology and information formats – for example, citing prior art in a standard
way – helps to make IP systems efficient and cost-effective. It simplifies the work of IP Offices,
facilitates international cooperation and means that IP information is easier to understand for
everyone. They are used in global services for protecting intellectual property (IP) like the Patent
Cooperation Treaty (PCT), Madrid and Hague Systems, publications issued by IP Offices, global
IP databases and business software solutions for IP Offices such as IPAS, WIPO Publish and
WIPO Scan.

2.5.2 Who sets WIPO Standards?

WIPO Standards reflect best practices around the world. They are drafted with the help of
experts from many countries in meetings and online fora organized by WIPO.

2.5.3 What do WIPO Standards cover?

WIPO Standards cover patents, trademarks and industrial designs and are used at all stages of the
industrial property prosecution process (filing, examination, publication, grant) as well as for
data dissemination.
Who uses WIPO Standards? WIPO Standards are aimed at three main groups of users and
facilitate working in different systems and languages.

1. IP Offices use WIPO Standards to number documents, communicate in a common language

with other Offices, and prepare official gazettes, among many other things. WIPO Standards also
help IP Offices modernize their information systems.

2. IP information users can use them to cross-reference country and organization codes, retrieve
documents from citations and read search reports.
3. Applicants for IP protection use WIPO Standards when they cite prior art, file sequence
listings, make their applications suitable for digitization and indicate dates.

2.5.4 CWS is currently involved in issues:

Task forces and e-forums:

The CWS establishes Task Forces consisting of policy makers and experts nominated by
Committee members and observers to address specific tasks, such as the development of WIPO
Standards.

1) ICT strategies and WIPO standards

Task No. 58:

Prepare a proposal for a roadmap of future development and enhancement of WIPO standards,
including policy recommendations, in view of more effective production, sharing, and utilization
of data by IPOs and other interested parties.

2) Block Chain for intellectual property

Task No. 59:

Explore the possibility of using block chain technology in the processes of providing IP rights
protection, processing information about IP objects and their use; Collect information about IPO
developments in use of and experience with block chain, assess current Industry Standards on
block chain and consider merit and applicability to IPOs; Develop a model to standardize
approaches of using block chain technology in the IP field, including guiding principles,
common practice and use of terminology as a framework supporting collaboration, joint projects
and proofs of concept; and Prepare a proposal for a new WIPO standard applying block chain
technology in the processes of providing IP rights protection, processing information about IP
objects and their use.

3) INID codes for new trademark types

Task No. 60:

Prepare a proposal for the numbering of INID codes in WIPO Standard ST.60 regarding word
marks and figurative marks; on splitting INID code (551), and a potential INID code for
combined marks.
4) 3D Models and Images

Task No. 61:

Prepare a proposal for recommendations on three-dimensional (3D) models and images.

5) Digital Transformation

Task No. 62:

Review WIPO Standards: ST.6, ST.8, ST.10, ST.11, ST.15, ST.17, ST.18, ST.63 and ST.81 in
view of electronic publication of IP documentation; and propose revisions of those Standards if
needed.

2.6 Standing Committee for Information Technologies

The use and development of information technologies in the procedures of protection of

intellectual property has crucial importance. This committee is dedicated to the development of
information system of the WIPO and offering assistance to the member countries in the
development of their own information systems.

2.7 Standing Committees of Experts

This concerns committees formed by the countries signatories of the classification treaties:
Locarno Agreement, Nice Agreement, Strasbourg Agreement and Vienna Treaty. Their task is to
revise periodically the existing classifications. Our country attends the meetings of the
Committee of experts for the Nice Agreement and Strasbourg Agreement.