INDEPENDENT NEWS

Cablegate: Development of Website Ipr Materials

Published: Mon 22 Nov 2004 06:02 PM
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS BRASILIA 002870
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD ECON BEXP KCRM BR IPR
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF WEBSITE IPR MATERIALS
REF: SECSTATE 224924
1. Embassy Brasilia offers the following thoughts in
response to reftel's request to consider development of
post specific, IPR-related web-site materials, citing the
China "IPR Toolkit" as an example. Please see action
request in para 5.
2. Brazil is a major market for counterfeit and pirated
products. The International Intellectual Property Alliance
(IIPA) estimates that $785 million were lost by U.S.
copyright industries alone in 2003 due to piracy; Brazil is
on USTR's special 301 priority watch list. In 2001, IIPA
filed a petition to remove trade benefits from Brazil under
the Generalized System of Preferences; that review is still
on-going. Although Brazil's patent law is largely TRIPs
compliant, weak management of the national patent institute
and a lack of resources over a number of years have
resulted in an estimated 60,000-70,000 patent application
backlog.
3. Given the substantial commercial risk in Brazil
resulting from piracy, counterfeiting, and a stalled patent
system, post welcomes the suggestion of making information
on Brazil's intellectual property regime available on our
website in an effort to aid U.S. companies. However, to
develop materials in line with the China IPR toolkit, post
would require financial assistance. Mission does not have
any officers who work solely on IPR issues; dedicating
staff to development of in-house material on the scale of
the China IPR toolkit would severely undermine our ability
to cover other essential elements of our work in Brazil.
To avoid the potential misperception that the USG is
providing legal advice, we also believe it best that
detailed guidance be provided by legal professionals.
4. Mission resources would enable staff to produce an
overview section on IPR protection in Brazil by February
next year; post proposes contracting with a local IPR
law/consulting firm to provide the detailed "how to"
information for each type of IPR protection. This material
would draw heavily from and be linked to Brazil's National
Patent Institute (INPI) website, which already has in-depth
information in English on pertinent laws, regulations,
international treaties and application/registration
procedures for the protection of patents, trademarks, and
industrial designs. In addition to augmenting the INPI
information as necessary, the local firm would provide
detailed "how-to" information covering copyright
protection. Post estimates the cost of contracting out
development of such material at around $10,000 with
turnaround time of one to two months.
5. Action Request: Embassy requests that Washington
agencies consider making funds available for development by
a local firm of more detailed guidance for protecting
specific intellectual property rights in Brazil.
Meanwhile, Post will move forward with drafting an IPR
overview for placement on the Embassy website, drawing
heavily from the National Trade Estimate report and Country
Commercial Guide.
CHICOLA
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media