UKRAINE IPR CONFERENCE HOSTS LATEST ROUND IN FIGHT

UNCLAS KYIV 002260 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPE AND EUR/UMB STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR JGROVES/PBURKHEAD COMMERCE FOR ITA/MAC/OIPR COMMERCE FOR 4231/ITA/OEENIS/NISD - CLUCYCK COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO STATE PLEASE PASS TO COPYRIGHT OFFICE E.O. 12958: DECL: N/A TAGS: ETRD KIPR ECON UP SUBJECT: UKRAINE IPR CONFERENCE HOSTS LATEST ROUND IN FIGHT OVER COPYRIGHTS REFS: A) KYIV 1205 B) KYIV 348 C) 2006 KYIV 4359 D) 2006 KIEV 3810 E) 2006 KIEV 3414 F) 2006 KIEV 3293 G) 2006 KIEV 3145 ¶1. Summary: Ukraine's annual IPR Conference, held September 3-7, brought together GOU officials, industry reps, and international experts to promote better IPR protection in the country. Discussion of possible Copyright Law amendments and the operation of royalty collecting societies proved most contentious. Although the courts have now confirmed the revocation of the license of a rogue and long-irksome collecting society, Ukraine's collective management system remains in need of reform. Post has insisted that Washington be able to review any legislative amendments before they are sent to parliament, now not expected to occur until 2008. The conference also allowed participants to explore alternative IPR enforcement methods and how to align Ukraine's IPR practices more fully with Europe. Post thanks USPTO and the Copyright Office for providing top-notch guest speakers for the event. End Summary. "Ukraine Will Never Return to the Dark Days" -------------- ¶2. Ukraine's State Department of Intellectual Property (SDIP) held its annual IPR Conference in Yalta, September 3-7. The approximately 200 conference participants included a range of GOU officials, industry representatives, and international experts from institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). SDIP Chairman Mykola Paladiy opened the event by reviewing progress on the IPR front, stating that Ukraine would "never return to the dark days" when it was listed as a Priority Foreign Country on the USG's Special 301 Report. Rogue Collecting Society Loses License -------------- ¶3. SDIP Deputy Chairman Valentin Chebotarov chaired a special session on copyrights. SDIP officials briefed on a recent court decision upholding the GOU's revocation several months back of the license of Oberih, a rogue royalty collecting society that had long drawn the ire of both the domestic and foreign copyright industry (refs E- F). (Note: Several contacts had told Econoff prior to the decision that they feared Oberih had a good chance of winning its appeal in court. End note.) SDIP's move, now confirmed by the courts, closed a long-standing irritant for the copyright industry. Continued Disagreement over Copyright Law Amendment -------------- -------------- ¶4. Chebotarov admitted that Ukraine's copyright system needed further changes, and said the GOU was still working on revisions to the draft Copyright Law amendment to clarify the functioning of royalty collecting societies. He noted, however, that SDIP would finalize the draft law only after further input from interested parties, and not before the end of the year. SDIP officials outlined their current thinking regarding possible legal changes, describing a kind of two-tier collective management system. One "authorized" collecting society (or at the most two) would deal directly with all IP users. This "authorized" society would collect royalty payments on behalf of rights holders, but distribute them to various other collecting societies operating in Ukraine, as designated by rights holders. These second-tier collecting societies would then be responsible for returning the royalty payments to individual rights holders. ¶5. Matt Skelton, from the U.S. Copyright Office, and Mihaly Ficsor, a highly regarded authority from the Central and Eastern European Copyright Alliance, cautioned the GOU against forms of mandatory or extended collective management. If enshrined in Ukrainian law, such provisions could unfairly and inadvisably reduce the rights of copyright owners, they said. Skelton also outlined other areas where Ukrainian royalty collecting societies could play a positive role, such as enforcement -- helping to bring pirates to court -- and lobbying -- advising the GOU on possible legislative changes. ¶6. Boisterous disagreement quickly ensued. The quasi state-run collecting society UASP recognized rights holders' complaints about its operations, but defended itself on the grounds that it was forming a new and improved collective management structure. (Comment: We suspect that this UASP body is SDIP's preferred candidate to become the "authorized" collecting society sitting atop their envisioned two-tier system. End Comment.) Representatives of the two IFPI-backed royalty collecting societies (the Ukrainian Music Rights League and the Ukrainian Music Alliance) criticized the current version of the draft Copyright Law amendment, and attacked UASP for collecting royalty payments without authorization of the true rights holders. Ignat Berezhny, head of the Ukrainian Music Industry Association, emphasized the importance of international cooperation and urged the GOU to provide an English translation of any proposed Copyright Law amendments for IFPI's analysis and comment. (Note: Post has similarly requested an English translation of the draft amendment so that the USG can review. SDIP has promised to provide a translation after completing additional revisions, and before moving the draft forward through the government. End note.) Alternative Enforcement Tactics -------------- ¶7. Erik Wilbers, Acting Director of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, encouraged Ukraine to look to mediation as an alternative to costly and lengthy (Comment: and often corrupt) court proceedings. Deputy Chairman of the High Commercial Court Viktor Moskalenko agreed that court-ordered alternative dispute resolution could be helpful, although several journalists present at the event expressed doubt that Ukrainian society was "ready" for such measures. Wilbers responded that mediation and arbitration are in fact most useful in highly litigious societies. ¶8. Todd Reves, from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, focused on border enforcement measures as a way to ease pressure on law enforcement and courts and, in effect, to get "the most bang for the buck" in combating piracy and counterfeiting. Reves encouraged the GOU to use risk analysis in order to most efficiently screen imported goods. ¶9. Microsoft rep Daniil Klyuchnikov noted that the corporation was shifting to educational and media activities throughout Ukraine's regions (rather than just Kyiv) as part of its reinvigorated anti-piracy campaign (ref A). Moving Towards Europe -------------- ¶10. Several speakers encouraged Ukraine to harmonize its IPR procedures more fully with Europe. Jorg Weberndorfer, from the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) urged Ukraine to consider adopting OHIM's standards for issuing trademarks. Wilbers suggested that Ukrainian companies include provisions allowing for WIPO mediation when drawing up IP-related contracts. Laura Pazeraite, a Lithuanian trademark lawyer, briefed on Lithuania's efforts to harmonize its trademark system with Europe and OHIM, providing a model for Ukraine. Capitalizing on Ukraine's Intellectual Potential -------------- --- ¶11. Paladiy and Viktor Ivchenko, Chairman of the State Agency on Investment and Innovation (more on this organization to be reported septel),highlighted promoting innovation as a GOU priority. Econoff emphasized that increased IPR protection should be a cornerstone of any pro-innovation policy. The conference also gave a range of industry reps, from mineral water producers to coal mining companies to software developers, the opportunity to explore how to better protect their intellectual property rights. For example, Sergey Malenkov, from the mining equipment producer Dongiprouglemash, warned the audience of how his company had erred by failing to file for a patent on one particular invention quickly enough. Comment: Copyright Victory a Hollow One? -------------- ¶12. Post had hoped that the revocation of the Oberih royalty collecting society's license, if it could only be held up in the courts, would lead to a significant resolution of collective management problems. Indeed, we encouraged SDIP's move through a demarche on our concerns about Oberih (refs D and G),and during meetings of the IPR Enforcement Cooperation Group by urging the GOU to do more to address rights holders concerns (refs B-C). It is clear that problems remain even after Oberih's demise, however. Oberih continues to operate, albeit now without the SDIP stamp of approval, as do other unscrupulous collecting societies. Post also remains concerned by SDIP's penchant for government control over the collective management system and the prospect of a state-anointed "authorized" collecting society playing an exclusive role. That said, SDIP's desire to reform the system to make it easier for the user to direct royalty payments to the proper rights holder is understandable. We have made our desire to review any proposed copyright legislation very clear, and will follow up to ensure that Washington can review draft laws before they move through the legislative process. Thanks to USPTO and Copyright Office -------------- ¶13. Post sincerely thanks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the U.S. Copyright Office for the participation of Todd Reves and Matt Skelton in the conference. They added a much-appreciated level of expertise, as well as an American point of view, to the event. TAYLOR