Following a request from the European Commission, representative IP bodies in countries around the world were asked to describe the effectiveness of the current IPR protection and enforcement situation for each country and IP right, the Alliance for Intellectual Property members have produced the following comments. ACID is a member of the Alliance for IP.

Dids Macdonald, Vice Chair of the Alliance and CEO of ACID said, “I welcome the opportunity of raising awareness about aspects of IP in third world countries which could be improved. Raising awareness about concerns, if this results in improved IP protection, is an excellent initiative of the EU commission and a positive step in the right direction to improve export opportunities through raising IP standards.”

In addition to third world countries, members commented on some aspects of IP protection in Australia and Canada. The objective was to encourage detailed and precise comments to identify legal problems and practical challenges so that these can be addressed with relevant authorities. Those who responded were asked to consider the following:

• In general, how has the level of IPR protection and enforcement in this country changed over the last two years (improved, has not changed, worsened)?
• Legal provisions (with the titles of legal acts as well as their respective articles and paragraphs) which, in your view, are not compatible with international norms and standards in the area of intellectual property or which otherwise negatively affect the commercial exploitation of IP rights;
• Practical challenges and limitations (such as procedural deficiencies, backlogs, non-deterrent level of sanctions, lack of expertise, corruption, lack of political will, lack of awareness and lack of transparency) which have a negative impact on IP protection and enforcement;
• Concrete examples of deficiencies of administrative and judicial mechanisms in the area of IPR (e.g. IP offices, customs, police and courts);
• Any other systemic problems in the country concerned, including information on the nature, scope and economic dimension of counterfeiting and piracy as well as on the level of cooperation between enforcement authorities and rightholders;
• Any action or measure taken by the respondent to address the problems identified and the outcome of such efforts;
• Concrete suggestions on how the problems and challenges identified could be addressed by the EU.
• Please describe whether and to what extent progress has been made over the last 2 years by the countries listed (e.g. legislative or administrative reforms, structural reorganisations such as the establishment of specialised IP courts, new IP strategies, training programmes, awareness raising campaigns and cooperation with rights’ holders).

For an in depth but concise summary of the responses please read about the different countries involved and the status, comments and recommendations here.