NEW YORK, NY – March 2010 – The International Trademark Association (INTA) today announced its support for President Barack Obama as he underscores the importance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the United States’ commitment to protecting businesses and consumers around the world from intellectual property infringement.
The letter of support, highlights the fact that a strong economic future with sustained job growth, combined with tough intellectual property protections, will guard businesses and consumers in the global marketplace.
“The entire trademark community is pleased to see that President Obama has made the case for increasing protections for brand owners and consumers a top priority. Once complete, we are confident that ACTA will be a meaningful treaty that will increase protection against counterfeit products that threaten the health and safety of consumers,” said INTA Executive Director, Alan Drewsen.
About ACTA
In late 2007, in recognition of increasing challenges to combating counterfeiting and piracy, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States announced that they would begin negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, known as ACTA – a plurilateral agreement intended to establish a stronger set of common standards for intellectual property enforcement among the signatories of the Agreement.
INTA has expressed support for the general principles and objectives of ACTA, and in cooperation with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has coordinated the effort of more than twenty national, regional and international industry associations, many of which are based in the negotiating countries, to provide the business perspective on topics under discussion by ACTA negotiators. The group has urged negotiators to deliver an agreement that will significantly improve the international enforcement by establishing stronger standards for government performance and more effective national regimes for protecting intellectual property rights.
In and on behalf of
Patent and law firm IPPro
среда, 31 марта 2010 г.
пятница, 26 марта 2010 г.
Global Financial Crisis Hits International Trademark Filings in the past year
Geneva, March 2010
PR/2010/634
International trademark filings under WIPO’s Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (“the Madrid system”) dropped by 16% in 2009 as a result of the global economic downturn, though increases were observed among some major users of the system, notably the European Union (EU) (3.1%) and Japan (2.7%), as well as in the Republic of Korea (ROK) (+33.9%), Singapore (+20.5%), Croatia (+17.5%) and Hungary (+14.5%).
WIPO received 35,195 international applications under the 84-member Madrid system compared to 42,075 in 2008. Similarly, international trademark registrations were down 12% on 2008 with a total 35,925 international registrations in 2009. Trademark registrations reflect the introduction of new products and services to the market and are sensitive to business cycles. The comparatively smaller decrease (-1.2%) in the renewal of international trademark registrations, compared to 2008, reflects the value of established brands at a time when consumers opt for goods that are tried and trusted. In 2009, 19,234 international trademark renewals were recorded.
Regional and National Filing Trends
The EU accounted for over half of the international applications received – some 21,824 - in 2009. This includes international applications filed through national trademark offices of the countries concerned and those filed through the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) – applicants from the EU may opt to file through their national office or through OHIM. Some 3,710 international applications were filed through OHIM in 2009 representing a 3.1% increase on figures for 2008.
Marked declines in the filing of international trademark applications were evident in a number of countries in 2009, including the Czech Republic (-34.6%), Sweden (-34%), Italy ( 32.2%), Spain ( 29.9%), Denmark (-27.1%), Benelux (-26.2%), and Germany (-22.9%). Significant decreases were also recorded in international applications received from France (-16.5%), Austria (-15.7%), China ( 14.3%), the United Kingdom (-13.3%), the United States of America (USA) (-13.1%) and the Russian Federation (-10.3%).
Top Designated Countries
Madrid Union members were notified of 303,344 new designations (contained in new registrations or territorial extensions) in 2009, representing a 20% decrease compared to 2008 again reflecting the generally flat global economic conditions. When submitting an international trademark application, applicants must designate those member states in which they want their mark to be protected. Applicants can also extend the effects of an international registration to other members at a later date by filing a subsequent designation. In this way, the holder of an international registration can expand the geographical scope of the protection of a mark in line with evolving business needs.
The top six in the ranking of most designated member states remained unchanged. China (with 14,766 designations) continues to be the most designated country, followed by the Russian Federation, USA, Switzerland, the European Union and Japan.
The number of designations fell in all designated contracting parties, although a number of countries moved up the list of 40 most designated contracting parties. For example, Viet Nam moved from 24th to 21st position, Bosnia and Herzegovina from 33rd to 26th position, Azerbaijan from 36th to 32nd position, Georgia (from 35th to 33rd position) and Albania (from 40th to 35th position). Two countries entered the top 40 most designated countries in 2009, namely, Iran (37th) and Egypt (39th).
Active International Registrations
Over half a million (515,562) international registrations were active in the International Register at the end of 2009, containing some 5.6 million active designations and representing a 2.4% increase relative to 2008. These registrations belong to 169,939 right holders who are mostly small and medium-sized enterprises.
Membership of the Madrid System
The total number of member states of the Madrid system (governed by the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Madrid Protocol (1989)) remains 84. After the ratification of the Madrid Protocol by Egypt, and the accession to the Protocol by Liberia and Sudan, the number of contracting parties of the Protocol has risen to 81. This means that now only three countries are bound by the Madrid Agreement only. An expanding membership and an ever wider geographical spread of the system make it a more attractive option for businesses operating in international markets.
Of the total number of international applications filed in 2009, 35.7% were transmitted to WIPO electronically; the transmitting trademark offices were those of Australia, Benelux, EU, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and the USA.
In and on behalf of
Mr.Samir, IPPro
PR/2010/634
International trademark filings under WIPO’s Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (“the Madrid system”) dropped by 16% in 2009 as a result of the global economic downturn, though increases were observed among some major users of the system, notably the European Union (EU) (3.1%) and Japan (2.7%), as well as in the Republic of Korea (ROK) (+33.9%), Singapore (+20.5%), Croatia (+17.5%) and Hungary (+14.5%).
WIPO received 35,195 international applications under the 84-member Madrid system compared to 42,075 in 2008. Similarly, international trademark registrations were down 12% on 2008 with a total 35,925 international registrations in 2009. Trademark registrations reflect the introduction of new products and services to the market and are sensitive to business cycles. The comparatively smaller decrease (-1.2%) in the renewal of international trademark registrations, compared to 2008, reflects the value of established brands at a time when consumers opt for goods that are tried and trusted. In 2009, 19,234 international trademark renewals were recorded.
Regional and National Filing Trends
The EU accounted for over half of the international applications received – some 21,824 - in 2009. This includes international applications filed through national trademark offices of the countries concerned and those filed through the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) – applicants from the EU may opt to file through their national office or through OHIM. Some 3,710 international applications were filed through OHIM in 2009 representing a 3.1% increase on figures for 2008.
Marked declines in the filing of international trademark applications were evident in a number of countries in 2009, including the Czech Republic (-34.6%), Sweden (-34%), Italy ( 32.2%), Spain ( 29.9%), Denmark (-27.1%), Benelux (-26.2%), and Germany (-22.9%). Significant decreases were also recorded in international applications received from France (-16.5%), Austria (-15.7%), China ( 14.3%), the United Kingdom (-13.3%), the United States of America (USA) (-13.1%) and the Russian Federation (-10.3%).
Top Designated Countries
Madrid Union members were notified of 303,344 new designations (contained in new registrations or territorial extensions) in 2009, representing a 20% decrease compared to 2008 again reflecting the generally flat global economic conditions. When submitting an international trademark application, applicants must designate those member states in which they want their mark to be protected. Applicants can also extend the effects of an international registration to other members at a later date by filing a subsequent designation. In this way, the holder of an international registration can expand the geographical scope of the protection of a mark in line with evolving business needs.
The top six in the ranking of most designated member states remained unchanged. China (with 14,766 designations) continues to be the most designated country, followed by the Russian Federation, USA, Switzerland, the European Union and Japan.
The number of designations fell in all designated contracting parties, although a number of countries moved up the list of 40 most designated contracting parties. For example, Viet Nam moved from 24th to 21st position, Bosnia and Herzegovina from 33rd to 26th position, Azerbaijan from 36th to 32nd position, Georgia (from 35th to 33rd position) and Albania (from 40th to 35th position). Two countries entered the top 40 most designated countries in 2009, namely, Iran (37th) and Egypt (39th).
Active International Registrations
Over half a million (515,562) international registrations were active in the International Register at the end of 2009, containing some 5.6 million active designations and representing a 2.4% increase relative to 2008. These registrations belong to 169,939 right holders who are mostly small and medium-sized enterprises.
Membership of the Madrid System
The total number of member states of the Madrid system (governed by the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Madrid Protocol (1989)) remains 84. After the ratification of the Madrid Protocol by Egypt, and the accession to the Protocol by Liberia and Sudan, the number of contracting parties of the Protocol has risen to 81. This means that now only three countries are bound by the Madrid Agreement only. An expanding membership and an ever wider geographical spread of the system make it a more attractive option for businesses operating in international markets.
Of the total number of international applications filed in 2009, 35.7% were transmitted to WIPO electronically; the transmitting trademark offices were those of Australia, Benelux, EU, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and the USA.
In and on behalf of
Mr.Samir, IPPro
среда, 24 марта 2010 г.
Brands Tackle Cyber squatters in 2009, UDRP becomes Eco-Friendly
Geneva, March 23, 2010
PR/2010/635
Demand for WIPO’s dispute resolution services, in particular relating to cyber squatting cases, continued in 2009 with trademark holders filing 2,107 complaints under procedures based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which at WIPO became a paperless operation at the end of 2009. While this caseload represents a 9.5% decrease over 2008, it covers the highest number of individual domain names in a given year (4,688) since the UDRP - a quick and cost effective way of addressing allegations of cyber squatting - was launched ten years ago.
Since the UDRP’s launch in December 1999, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) has received more than 17,000 UDRP-based cases. A total of some 31,000 domain names covering both generic and country code Top Level Domains (gTLDs and ccTLDs) have been handled by WIPO.
The UDRP has become accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes outside traditional courts. Proposed by WIPO in 1999, it is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, commonly known as cyber squatting.
Commenting on the success of the UDRP, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said, “The UDRP has proven to be a pioneering and globally applicable low-cost alternative to court litigation. It offers a practical solution to the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, a very real issue where the practical effect, legal status and desired outcome are normally not confined to any particular location,” said Mr. Gurry.
“Another key element of the UDRP’s popularity is the straightforward enforcement of panel decisions, without need for further judicial intervention, although this still remains an option. The UDRP can provide inspiration for alternative self-regulation in areas of commerce and other human activity that cross jurisdictional borders,” said Mr. Gurry. He noted, in particular, the relevance of a UDRP-type approach to resolving disputes arising from a range of uses of identity on the Internet, such as on social networking sites, auction platforms and in search engines.
Parties based in 114 countries were named in WIPO cases in 2009, up 10% on the previous year, reflecting the global reach of cyber squatting and WIPO’s services. In 2009, the Inter-Continental Hotel Group filed the largest UDRP dispute on record, involving 1,542 domain names in a single WIPO case.
Cases in 2009 were handled by 310 WIPO panelists from 46 countries. Although down 2% from 2008, English remained the most common language for WIPO proceedings (84%), largely because the majority of domain names involved were registered with US-based registrars.
Cases were also processed in 13 other languages, including (in order of frequency) Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Chinese, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Turkish. The character set of the disputed domain names themselves remained overwhelmingly ASCII (English alphabet), with a small number of domain names in Chinese, Danish, French, German, Turkish and Spanish.
The United States of America (USA), France, the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Switzerland and Spain remained the most frequent bases for complainants through 2009. The USA, UK, China, Canada, Spain, and the Republic of Korea were cited most frequently as respondents in alleged cyber squatting cases.
Among Top Level Domains, the .com gTLD remained the solid leader in terms of the number of domain names featuring in WIPO cases (87%).
Almost 24% of all cases filed in 2009 were settled prior to a panel decision. Of the remainder, 87% of the panel decisions ordered the transfer of the domain name(s) to the complainant (or cancellation of the name), and 13% denied the complaints, leaving the names in the possession of the registration holder.
Updated WIPO Precedent Tools
In 2009, the Center further enhanced its globally-consulted WIPO Legal Index of panel decisions by adding new search categories that track developments in case jurisprudence and reflect the evolution of domain name practices. New categories include Timing of rights; Pay-per-click and other landing pages; Prior knowledge/Notice of mark; Willful blindness; Constructive notice; Knew or should have known; Registrant search obligation.
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions helps to ensure the consistency of WIPO UDRP filing and jurisprudence by distilling the Center’s cases and describing panel positions on important case issues. An updated Overview of WIPO Panel Views is under preparation and is expected to be available by mid 2010.
PS. Stage of registration priority in the domain.РФ is been prolonged
The Council of Coordination centre for national domain in the network had decided to prolong the Internet stage of registration priority in the new Russia national domain.РФ till 11th of May 2010.
Shortly the Council of Coordination centre will confirm the new position about registration priority, and then the second stage of registration priority for the domain.РФ will be opened.
In and on behalf of
Mr.Samir, IPPro
PR/2010/635
Demand for WIPO’s dispute resolution services, in particular relating to cyber squatting cases, continued in 2009 with trademark holders filing 2,107 complaints under procedures based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which at WIPO became a paperless operation at the end of 2009. While this caseload represents a 9.5% decrease over 2008, it covers the highest number of individual domain names in a given year (4,688) since the UDRP - a quick and cost effective way of addressing allegations of cyber squatting - was launched ten years ago.
Since the UDRP’s launch in December 1999, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) has received more than 17,000 UDRP-based cases. A total of some 31,000 domain names covering both generic and country code Top Level Domains (gTLDs and ccTLDs) have been handled by WIPO.
The UDRP has become accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes outside traditional courts. Proposed by WIPO in 1999, it is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, commonly known as cyber squatting.
Commenting on the success of the UDRP, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said, “The UDRP has proven to be a pioneering and globally applicable low-cost alternative to court litigation. It offers a practical solution to the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, a very real issue where the practical effect, legal status and desired outcome are normally not confined to any particular location,” said Mr. Gurry.
“Another key element of the UDRP’s popularity is the straightforward enforcement of panel decisions, without need for further judicial intervention, although this still remains an option. The UDRP can provide inspiration for alternative self-regulation in areas of commerce and other human activity that cross jurisdictional borders,” said Mr. Gurry. He noted, in particular, the relevance of a UDRP-type approach to resolving disputes arising from a range of uses of identity on the Internet, such as on social networking sites, auction platforms and in search engines.
Parties based in 114 countries were named in WIPO cases in 2009, up 10% on the previous year, reflecting the global reach of cyber squatting and WIPO’s services. In 2009, the Inter-Continental Hotel Group filed the largest UDRP dispute on record, involving 1,542 domain names in a single WIPO case.
Cases in 2009 were handled by 310 WIPO panelists from 46 countries. Although down 2% from 2008, English remained the most common language for WIPO proceedings (84%), largely because the majority of domain names involved were registered with US-based registrars.
Cases were also processed in 13 other languages, including (in order of frequency) Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Chinese, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Turkish. The character set of the disputed domain names themselves remained overwhelmingly ASCII (English alphabet), with a small number of domain names in Chinese, Danish, French, German, Turkish and Spanish.
The United States of America (USA), France, the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Switzerland and Spain remained the most frequent bases for complainants through 2009. The USA, UK, China, Canada, Spain, and the Republic of Korea were cited most frequently as respondents in alleged cyber squatting cases.
Among Top Level Domains, the .com gTLD remained the solid leader in terms of the number of domain names featuring in WIPO cases (87%).
Almost 24% of all cases filed in 2009 were settled prior to a panel decision. Of the remainder, 87% of the panel decisions ordered the transfer of the domain name(s) to the complainant (or cancellation of the name), and 13% denied the complaints, leaving the names in the possession of the registration holder.
Updated WIPO Precedent Tools
In 2009, the Center further enhanced its globally-consulted WIPO Legal Index of panel decisions by adding new search categories that track developments in case jurisprudence and reflect the evolution of domain name practices. New categories include Timing of rights; Pay-per-click and other landing pages; Prior knowledge/Notice of mark; Willful blindness; Constructive notice; Knew or should have known; Registrant search obligation.
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions helps to ensure the consistency of WIPO UDRP filing and jurisprudence by distilling the Center’s cases and describing panel positions on important case issues. An updated Overview of WIPO Panel Views is under preparation and is expected to be available by mid 2010.
PS. Stage of registration priority in the domain.РФ is been prolonged
The Council of Coordination centre for national domain in the network had decided to prolong the Internet stage of registration priority in the new Russia national domain.РФ till 11th of May 2010.
Shortly the Council of Coordination centre will confirm the new position about registration priority, and then the second stage of registration priority for the domain.РФ will be opened.
In and on behalf of
Mr.Samir, IPPro
четверг, 18 марта 2010 г.
INTA Internet Committee Report: Substituted Service of Process by Electronic Mail
Active commercial websites owned by people and entities that conceal their identity and whereabouts by providing false information (often with the exception of a valid e-mail address), and/or by using proxy services that shield such information from public disclosure (hereafter, “fictitiously owned commercial websites”) threaten the ability to serve judicial documents swiftly (and therefore to institute legal action swiftly, if at all). Therefore, the prevalence of fictitiously owned commercial websites has resulted in increased abuses of intellectual property, online fraud and other illegal schemes, resulting in decreased consumer confidence in the stability and security of the Internet marketplace.
In 2007, the INTA Anti-Counterfeiting & Enforcement Committee (ACEC) contacted the INTA Internet Committee for its input on various policy proposals, including the feasibility of requiring domain owners to appoint an agent for service of process. The Internet Committee responded with the suggestion that national laws could be amended to allow for service of process through the contact points found in the Whois database. The ACEC accepted this recommendation which was included in its report to the Board in May of 2008.
In mid 2008, the proposal was referred to the Whois Subcommittee of the Internet Committee for further development and consideration. And in January 2009, the Electronic Service Working Group was formed from members of the Whois Subcommittee, with additional members from the Courts and Tribunals Subcommittee of the INTA Enforcement Committee.
The resulting report, Substituted Service of Process by Electronic Mail: Achieving Notice on Fictitious Owners of Commercial Websites for Access to Judicial Remedies, considers the prospects for streamlining the process necessary before an aggrieved party may undertake substituted service of process on the hidden owner of a commercial web site by electronic mail.
In September of 2009, the subcommittee’s proposal was presented to the INTA Policy Development & Advocacy Executive Council and the INTA Board of Directors Executive Committee and in November 2009 to the INTA Board of Directors taking a position on the issue:
1) Should the recommendation be limited to trademark infringement and cyber squatting cases?
2) What effect would the proposal have on non-trademark claims involving fictitiously owned commercial web sites?
3) Would other legal organizations and stakeholders support and/or have changes to the proposal?
Mr. Samir Rahman
On & in behalf of
Patent and Law firm ‘IPPro’
In 2007, the INTA Anti-Counterfeiting & Enforcement Committee (ACEC) contacted the INTA Internet Committee for its input on various policy proposals, including the feasibility of requiring domain owners to appoint an agent for service of process. The Internet Committee responded with the suggestion that national laws could be amended to allow for service of process through the contact points found in the Whois database. The ACEC accepted this recommendation which was included in its report to the Board in May of 2008.
In mid 2008, the proposal was referred to the Whois Subcommittee of the Internet Committee for further development and consideration. And in January 2009, the Electronic Service Working Group was formed from members of the Whois Subcommittee, with additional members from the Courts and Tribunals Subcommittee of the INTA Enforcement Committee.
The resulting report, Substituted Service of Process by Electronic Mail: Achieving Notice on Fictitious Owners of Commercial Websites for Access to Judicial Remedies, considers the prospects for streamlining the process necessary before an aggrieved party may undertake substituted service of process on the hidden owner of a commercial web site by electronic mail.
In September of 2009, the subcommittee’s proposal was presented to the INTA Policy Development & Advocacy Executive Council and the INTA Board of Directors Executive Committee and in November 2009 to the INTA Board of Directors taking a position on the issue:
1) Should the recommendation be limited to trademark infringement and cyber squatting cases?
2) What effect would the proposal have on non-trademark claims involving fictitiously owned commercial web sites?
3) Would other legal organizations and stakeholders support and/or have changes to the proposal?
Mr. Samir Rahman
On & in behalf of
Patent and Law firm ‘IPPro’
вторник, 16 марта 2010 г.
Uninvited Guests at the Super Bowl: Illegal Counterfeits and Knockoffs
Trademark community warns consumers to buy genuine goods
NEW YORK, NY – March 2010 – International Trademark Association (INTA) today issued a warning to football fans hoping to buy official Super Bowl gear and offered tips on how to spot fake merchandise.
Counterfeiters are planning on taking advantage of loyal NFL enthusiasts this year, and INTA is committed to raising awareness on these fake goods and apparel. Illegal counterfeit goods promote child labor and fund organized crime. Counterfeit and knock-off goods also use sub-par materials that leave consumers with second-rate merchandise and take away jobs from legitimate manufacturers.
To help fans, INTA has compiled tips on what to look for when purchasing Super Bowl apparel and merchandise. Consumers should:
1. Shop in established stores and be wary of street and out-of-trunk vendors.
2. Research goods beforehand to know exactly what they want.
3. Not buy items of poor quality that have irregular stitching or uneven coloring.
4. Avoid items without an authentic logo or with an awkward looking label.
5. Not buy items with prices that are uncharacteristically low.
According to federal, state and local authorities, there were approximately 1,000 pieces of counterfeit NFL goods and a million dollars worth of non-NFL fakes sold illegally at last Super Bowl.
“In this troubled economy, it’s only natural for consumers to look for the best deals around. But when it comes to Super Bowl Sunday and authentic NFL gear, we urge consumers to buy from authorized retailers and trusted stores. Looking back, you’ll be glad that you purchased real merchandise to remember the 2010 Super Bowl,” said INTA Executive Director, Alan C. Drewsen.
On & in behalf of
Patent and Law firm ‘IPPro’
NEW YORK, NY – March 2010 – International Trademark Association (INTA) today issued a warning to football fans hoping to buy official Super Bowl gear and offered tips on how to spot fake merchandise.
Counterfeiters are planning on taking advantage of loyal NFL enthusiasts this year, and INTA is committed to raising awareness on these fake goods and apparel. Illegal counterfeit goods promote child labor and fund organized crime. Counterfeit and knock-off goods also use sub-par materials that leave consumers with second-rate merchandise and take away jobs from legitimate manufacturers.
To help fans, INTA has compiled tips on what to look for when purchasing Super Bowl apparel and merchandise. Consumers should:
1. Shop in established stores and be wary of street and out-of-trunk vendors.
2. Research goods beforehand to know exactly what they want.
3. Not buy items of poor quality that have irregular stitching or uneven coloring.
4. Avoid items without an authentic logo or with an awkward looking label.
5. Not buy items with prices that are uncharacteristically low.
According to federal, state and local authorities, there were approximately 1,000 pieces of counterfeit NFL goods and a million dollars worth of non-NFL fakes sold illegally at last Super Bowl.
“In this troubled economy, it’s only natural for consumers to look for the best deals around. But when it comes to Super Bowl Sunday and authentic NFL gear, we urge consumers to buy from authorized retailers and trusted stores. Looking back, you’ll be glad that you purchased real merchandise to remember the 2010 Super Bowl,” said INTA Executive Director, Alan C. Drewsen.
On & in behalf of
Patent and Law firm ‘IPPro’
четверг, 4 марта 2010 г.
The third All-Russia Forum on «Intellectual property–XXI century»
On April, 2010 - ‘Days of intellectual property’ will be held in the Russian Federation.
As the central event of this program carrying out in Moscow, on 20-23th April, 2010 is provided to the All-Russia forum on «Intellectual property – XXI century». The forthcoming Forum will be the third specialized Forum concerning intellectual property.
This forum will be supported by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
As organizers of this Forum have acted: Commercial & industrial chamber of the Russian Federation, the State Duma of Federal Meeting of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of culture of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Rospatent, the Government of Moscow, the Russian state institute of intellectual property, the Russian author's society, Fund of preservation of a cultural heritage, Fund of support and development of education, creativity, culture, etc.
Within the limits of this Forum will take part twelve thematic section sessions («round tables») concerning the copyright, trademarks and other means of individualization, commercialization of technologies, etc.
On & in behalf of
Patent and Law firm ‘IPPro’
As the central event of this program carrying out in Moscow, on 20-23th April, 2010 is provided to the All-Russia forum on «Intellectual property – XXI century». The forthcoming Forum will be the third specialized Forum concerning intellectual property.
This forum will be supported by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
As organizers of this Forum have acted: Commercial & industrial chamber of the Russian Federation, the State Duma of Federal Meeting of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of culture of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Rospatent, the Government of Moscow, the Russian state institute of intellectual property, the Russian author's society, Fund of preservation of a cultural heritage, Fund of support and development of education, creativity, culture, etc.
Within the limits of this Forum will take part twelve thematic section sessions («round tables») concerning the copyright, trademarks and other means of individualization, commercialization of technologies, etc.
On & in behalf of
Patent and Law firm ‘IPPro’
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)