WIPO CENTER COMING TO SINGAPORE, BUT IPR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 SINGAPORE 000755 SIPDIS EAP/MTS FOR MCOPPOLA STATE PASS USTR FOR DBISBEE AND AUSTR BWEISEL E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/13/2019 TAGS: KIPR ETRD EINV ECON SN SUBJECT: WIPO CENTER COMING TO SINGAPORE, BUT IPR ENFORCEMENT STILL LAGGING HERE REF: A. 08 SINGAPORE 1168 ¶B. SINGAPORE 311 Classified By: Econ/Pol Counselor Joel Ehrendreich for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Singapore and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) signed an agreement on July 28 to establish the first WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center outside of Geneva. Singapore is already home to a WIPO office and the new Center is slated to open in January 2010. News of the Singapore-WIPO Center agreement was met with skepticism by local intellectual property (IP) contacts who dismissed it as a Singapore "marketing ploy" and a bid to increase jobs for local attorneys when Singapore appears to be doing little to enforce intellectual property rights (IPR) here. IP contacts reiterated their frustration with protracted IPR-related issues and the apparent lack of political will within the GOS. Industry contacts would like to see the USG put more pressure on the GOS to address IP issues and outlined some potential approaches for the USG to advocate, particularly in the lead-up to the next annual review of the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA). End Summary. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center -------------- ¶2. (U) The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) signed an agreement with Singapore on July 28 to establish the first office of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center outside of Geneva, Switzerland. The new Center, which is expected to open in January 2010, will focus on promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services in the Asia-Pacific region. The WIPO Center will offer training and advisory services for arbitration, mediation and expert determination in cases, and will administer hearings in cases conducted under the WIPO rules in Singapore. Press reports also indicated that WIPO and Singapore signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop a new dispute arbitration program specifically for film-related issues. In public statements Minister for Law K. Shanmugam said that increased arbitration work will lead to more jobs in Singapore and will "enhance Singapore's reputation as a center for IP protection." Industry Skeptical About WIPO Center -------------- ¶3. (C) However, local IP attorney Sheena Jacob, who represents clients such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA),told Econoff that locating the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in Singapore is probably not that meaningful, as the existing WIPO office here is "not doing very much." Jacob dismissed the development as part of Singapore's efforts to market itself as an IPR "hub" but noted that if people "scratched below the surface" they would see that "nobody in the GOS is really interested in dealing with IPR." The GOS values the legal work and high-value jobs that the Center could create, she added. Motion Picture Association (MPA) representative Frank Rittman expressed skepticism about the MOU between WIPO and Singapore regarding arbitration for film-related issues. He said he asked an IPOS (Intellectual Property Office of Singapore) official about it, noting that none of the film studios MPA represents would arbitrate a contractual dispute in Singapore. Rittman said that the IPOS official agreed and gave him the impression that IPOS was "making it up as they go along." IP Issues Continue; Singapore No Hub for IP Protection -------------- -------------- ¶4. (C) Jacob said that unless the WIPO Center specifically focuses on Singapore and requires certain IP enforcement standards, the presence of the Center will do little to improve the situation here. There is a disconnect between what is being reported in the newspaper about IP protection in Singapore and what is actually happening on the ground, she continued. IPOS and the Intellectual Property Rights Branch (IPRB) of the Singapore police force, which are responsible for IP policy and enforcement respectively, do not have decision-making authority and cannot adequately address industry concerns about specific cases or IP issues, she said. The Ministry of Law does not seem interested in dealing with IP and Singapore does not have a dedicated IP SINGAPORE 00000755 002 OF 003 court, which Jacob attributed to lack of political will rather than a lack of capacity. In her view, the few judges assigned to IP cases seem well-equipped to handle the complexities of patent, trademark and copyright law. Jacob acknowledged that in the area of patent protections there seem to be fewer issues overall. ¶5. (C) Jacob told Econoff that several business software infringement cases have languished in the Singapore courts, including two that were pending decisions for two years. In both cases the IPRB recently decided to withdraw the charges at the direction of the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC). The AGC decided that because the infringement was the work of individual employees and not directed by company policy or management, there was no "willful" infringement. Jacob fears that the AGC may be setting such a high standard for "willful" infringement, that the courts will never actually charge violators. Further, the lack of transparency in the AGC decision-making process makes it difficult for industry to separately pursue civil charges. Jacob said that in one of the business software cases, the plaintiff wanted to proceed with civil charges but IPRB intended to return the evidence back to the defendant. Jacob pointed out that, in effect, Singapore has prosecuted only one similar copyright case since 2005, and the judge assessed fines that were less than the value of the infringing material (Ref A). ¶6. (C) Singapore continues to favor a "self-help" approach to IPR investigation and enforcement that is costly for industry and does not result in more prosecutions (Ref B). The Recording Industry of Singapore (RIS) approached IPRB at the end of June regarding better enforcement at neighborhood markets in which vendors at makeshift stalls have been found selling pirated music CDs, Barbara Wong, General Manager of RIS, told Econoff. Wong said that IPRB officials told RIS that it is IPRB policy to only take action in cases involving organized syndicates and large quantities of product. Otherwise, it is the responsibility of the copyright or trademark owners to investigate cases. IPRB said it would assist with raids if the case was substantial. However, Wong said that IPRB backed out of a raid for fear of appearing to be "fishing" for evidence after RIS conducted its own investigation of the neighborhood markets, which included purchasing samples of the pirated CDs. ¶7. (C) RIS and recording industry association IFPI continue to struggle with Singapore's lack of a policy or code of conduct regarding the obligation of Internet service providers (ISPs) to address Internet piracy. RIS and IFPI have advocated for ISPs to assist industry by using a graduated response to warn and eventually suspend Internet service for repeat violators. After initial discussions with IPOS that appeared promising, RIS and IFPI proposed a meeting in July between IPOS and IFPI representatives from London, Wong said. However, IPOS declined the meeting, noting that they are waiting to see how ISP codes of conduct develop in other countries before taking action here. That leaves industry to engage with local ISPs that have historically been unresponsive to industry notification regarding music piracy, according to Wong. Pressing for Change, Suggestions from Industry -------------- - ¶8. (C) Local IP contacts have requested broader USG support in advocating changes to Singapore's IPR system, based on approaches that have been effective in other markets. For example, to deter the import and distribution of pirated movies, MPA has asked Singapore to change its license application form to a statutory declaration that includes a section where the applicant must identify the source for the material. MPA has also provided guidance to the GOS on language it would like to see Singapore use to amend its laws to protect against illegal "camcording" of movies. BSA and business software attorneys proposed that the GOS provide prosecutors the latitude to break up infringement charges so that they total a higher fine in aggregate. Andrew Leck, a local IP attorney, has advocated for Singapore to address the transshipment of counterfeit goods by using a customs recordal system similar to what is in place in Hong Kong (Ref B). Sheena Jacob pointed out the need to approach new agencies or personalities within the GOS to find IPR champions. For example, she noted that Tommy Koh was often helpful during the drafting of the FTA. SINGAPORE 00000755 003 OF 003 ¶9. (C) COMMENT: The GOS has been characteristically opaque and slow in responses to industry and Post's concerns regarding IPR issues that have been raised in working-level meetings, at the annual FTA review, and in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings. The GOS has judged that Singapore's IP protections are enough compared to neighbors like Malaysia and Indonesia. The sheen may be wearing off though in areas such as Internet piracy and the transshipment of counterfeit goods, where economies like Hong Kong are described as more proactive. The lack of political will within the GOS is problematic when Singapore holds itself up as a model in areas like IP and has laws on the books, but does little to enforce them. Singapore has to get serious about IP enforcement if it wants to maintain its public reputation as an IP "hub," but there is little incentive without the threat of public pressure or jeopardy to longer-term economic goals (such as multi-lateral trade agreements). Post welcomes USTR's and other agencies' support in elevating the importance of IPR issues during the upcoming FTA review, in discussions regarding the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP),and whenever high-level officials responsible for trade visit Singapore. It may also be appropriate to review how Singapore is addressed during the next Special 301 Review process. End Comment. Visit Embassy Singapore's Classified website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eap/singapore/ind ex.cfm SHIELDS