UKRAINE: IPR ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION GROUP AGAIN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 KYIV 000292 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/UMB AND EB/TPP/IPE STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR BURKHEAD/GROVES USDOC FOR 4201/DOC/ITA/MAC/BISNIS USDOC FOR 4231/ITA/OEENIS/NISD/CLUCYCK SOFIA FOR MLAMBERTI E.O. 12958: DECL: N/A TAGS: ETRD KIPR EAGR SENV UP SUBJECT: UKRAINE: IPR ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION GROUP AGAIN PUSHES ON COUNTERFEIT AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS REFS: A) KYIV 256 B) 2008 KYIV 2265 and previous ¶1. (SBU) Summary: GOU, Embassy, and industry representatives discussed efforts to combat counterfeit agrochemicals at a February 10 IPR Enforcement Cooperation Group (ECG) meeting, a follow up to the last ECG meeting held in November. GOU interlocutors recognized the danger presented by counterfeit agrochemicals and expressed a desire to improve enforcement. The State Security Service finally provided some details regarding a major seizure made in 2006, but said it could not grant rights holders access to the seized goods until an ongoing criminal case was completed. Industry reps provided concrete proposals to improve the registration process for agrochemicals so that patent-infringing goods could not make it to the Ukrainian market. Rights holders also urged the GOU to develop a workable procedure to ensure destruction of any fake agrochemicals. The meeting offered hope for real improvements to the regulatory regime, although the GOU is unlikely to fully develop a destruction capability given its current budget crisis. End Summary. ¶2. (U) On February 10, Post and Ukraine's State Department of Intellectual Property (SDIP) conducted the ninth meeting of the U.S.-Ukraine IPR Enforcement Cooperation Group (ECG),with participation of numerous industry representatives. This ECG meeting focused on combating counterfeit agricultural chemicals. Post, rather than SDIP, hosted the ECG for the first time ever in an effort to encourage improved attendance from the last meeting (ref B),which focused on the same issue. ¶3. (U) The following is a list of key participants in the ECG meeting: GOU --- Valentin Chebotaryov - Deputy Chairman, SDIP Iryna Vasylenko - Head of Enforcement Division, SDIP Olena Shcherbakova - Head of European Integration and Int'l Cooperation Division, SDIP Liudmyla Syvolotska - IPR Division, State Customs Service Oleksandr Tkachuk - Center for Int'l Cooperation, State Security Service (SBU) Yevgeniy Rudik - IPR Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs Alla Otverchenko - Economic Cooperation Department, MFA Industry -------------- Marek Luczak - Syngenta Svetlana Matveyeva - DuPont Tatiana Zhurkova - DuPont Oleksandr Mamunya - Vasil Kisil & Partners Law Firm Natalia MacMaithghon - Pakharenko & Partners Law Firm (representing CropLife International) Oksana Bedratenko - European Business Association (EBA) Agrochemical Committee Enforcing Patents -------------- ¶4. (U) Industry reps reiterated complaints that patent linkage for agrochemicals is too weak, allowing patent- infringing products to find their way to the Ukrainian market. Zhurkova, DuPont Ukraine's lead for patent issues, urged Customs to be more proactive in stopping goods at the border that were suspected of infringing on an established patent. Syvolotska from Customs expressed a willingness to work with rights holders to block infringing imports arriving with falsified documentation, but stressed that a court ruling was necessary for Customs to act. Zhurkova also called on Customs to expand its IP registry, which currently covers only trademarks, to include patents. GOU officials responded that including patents in the registry would require Customs to dramatically expand its level of expertise and number of testing laboratories. ¶5. (U) Luczak, the Syngenta rep and chairman of EBA's Agrochemical Committee, which unites the leading internationals, noted that the process of defending patents KYIV 00000292 002 OF 003 through the courts was difficult, even "hopeless." Luczak, Bedratenko, and Mamunya therefore proposed that the GOU instead address the registration process, which they described as the "root cause" of the problem. On behalf of EBA, the group presented a draft amendment to the appropriate regulation (a Cabinet of Ministers Resolution) that would prohibit registration of a product found to be infringing on a valid patent. Such a regulatory amendment would solve at least 90 percent of the problems, said Luczak, as companies would no longer have to fight infringing patents through the courts after the infringing product had already appeared on the market. DuPont's Zhurkova appeared to agree, urging that, in considering product registration applications, the GOU should require additional documentation certifying that the relevant product did not violate any IP rights. ¶6. (U) Chebotaryov welcomed the EBA proposal and promised to circulate it within the GOU. (Note: The Ministry of Environment, responsible for registration, did not send a representative to this meeting, likely due to a reshuffle of personnel. EBA is addressing its proposal to them separately. End note.) "Uzin Case" - Finally an Official Response -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Deputy Econ Counselor asked for an update on the status of a large seizure of counterfeit agrochemicals made in 2006. (Background Note: In 2006, the GOU stopped and seized a shipment of approximately 500 metric tons of counterfeit agrochemicals, with a potential sales value of $2.5 million, from China. The shipment contained fake products of several international companies. The seized goods were initially held at a facility in the city of Uzin, but there were soon rumors that part or all of the shipment had "disappeared," presumably sold off by corrupt government officials. The GOU was slow to provide details, although law enforcement officials told us informally that the State Security Service (SBU) had taken possession of the seized goods and was conducting an investigation. Recently, industry reps heard rumors that what was left of the shipment was moved to a different facility in the city of Shostka. End Note.) Deputy Econ Counselor noted that rights holders could likely aid in the identification and destruction of the seized goods, but that the GOU would need to show good faith and grant rights holders access to the seizure. ¶8. (SBU) SBU rep Tkachuk briefed the group on the status of the case. He said that in May-June 2008, the entire shipment was moved from Uzin to a specialized storage facility. Tkachuk said that the shipment was being preserved for use as evidence in court, and that the SBU could not provide additional details, even the precise location of the facility, nor grant rights holders access to the shipment for fear of prejudicing an ongoing criminal investigation. Tkachuk sought to allay industry concerns that the shipment, or part of the shipment, had disappeared or was unsecured. ¶9. (U) Luczak expressed understanding that the counterfeit chemicals could not be destroyed without a court ruling but encouraged the GOU to provide more details as soon as possible. Destruction -------------- ¶10. (U) Luczak complained that there was no clear procedure in place to destroy counterfeit agrochemicals. Mamunya said he was particularly concerned that there was insufficient legal ground for destruction. EBA therefore presented proposed amendments to the Law on Pesticides and Agrochemicals, and to the relevant sub-legislative regulations, to clarify that counterfeit agrochemicals qualified as a kind of "banned substance" under the law that could be destroyed by the government. ¶11. (U) Vasylenko responded that the Criminal and Civil Codes already provided for the destruction of all counterfeit goods, although she admitted that the Law on KYIV 00000292 003 OF 003 Pesticides and Agrochemicals could be amended to eliminate any confusion (see ref B for additional discussion of this issue). (Note: The necessary amendments to the Criminal and Civil Codes were adopted in May 2007 as part of Ukraine's accession to the WTO. End note.) Deputy Econ Counselor encouraged the GOU to seriously consider the EBA proposal. Chebotaryov said that SDIP would be happy to follow up with industry reps to review the draft amendments in detail. Comment: Progress, but Destruction to Remain a Problem -------------- -------------- ¶12. (SBU) This ECG proved successfully in attracting wider GOU participation and focusing attention on what is a serious and challenging problem. The SBU now seems to understand that it needs to keep rights holders informed of the "Uzin case," a lesson we hope the GOU will keep in mind when there are future seizures. EBA's concrete proposals on how to fix the registration process were well received and hopefully will lay the groundwork for serious progress. That said, there is still a major gap in the enforcement chain, namely that the GOU does not have a workable, effective process for destroying counterfeit agrochemicals. And given Ukraine's budget crisis (ref A) -- as an example, an SDIP official told Econoff that the situation was so bad that every other light bulb in SDIP's offices had been removed to save money -- it is unlikely that in the near future the GOU will be able to build new facilities to destroy dangerous chemicals or even to finance destruction abroad. In the meantime, we will continue to push for progress on the regulatory side. End comment. TAYLOR