VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHKV #0456/01 0591043
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281043Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY KYIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5096
INFO RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0316
RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0024
UNCLAS KYIV 000456
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPE - JURBAN
STATE FOR INL - JVIGIL
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR PBURKHEAD/JGROVES
USDOC FOR 4231/ITA/OEENIS/NISD - CLUCYCK
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO AND CLDP
SOFIA FOR DOJ - MLAMBERTI
E.O. 12958: DECL: N/A
TAGS: ETRD KIPR ECON UP
SUBJECT: UKRAINE: IPR ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FUNDS PROGRAM STARTS WITH
JUDGES
REFS: A) KYIV 404
B) 2007 STATE 154669
C) 2007 KYIV 1452
D) 2007 KYIV 1417
E) 2007 STATE 55928
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; NOT FOR INTERNET PUBLICATION.
1. (U) Summary: Post, in cooperation with CLDP (Commerce), launched
a new IPR training initiative -- funded by STATE/INL -- with an IPR
enforcement workshop for Ukrainian judges February 12-14. The event
drew strong participation from 26 judges representing nearly all of
Ukraine's geographical regions. U.S. experts provided a broad
introduction to IP law and facilitated discussion of problematic
issues faced by Ukrainian judges. Participants gave high marks to
the event, and Post intends to continue to focus on the judiciary as
this training program moves forward. End Summary.
IPR Training Program Launch
---------------------------
2. (U) Post launched its intellectual property rights (IPR) training
initiative "Creating a Sustainable Ukrainian IPR Training
Capability" (ref D) with an IPR enforcement workshop for Ukrainian
judges February 12-14. This initiative is part of the State
Department's 2007 IPR Enforcement Training Funds Program (ref E),
administered by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs (INL), which has allocated USD 125,000 for
Ukraine (ref B). To implement the training initiative, Embassy
Economic Section is working closely with the Department of
Commerce's Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP), which is
taking the lead in organizing the workshops. This first workshop
was co-financed by CLDP, with its regular budget funds, and by Post,
using the INL fund cite provided in ref B. Post will provide copies
of all funding documents to INL/RM.
Strong Participation from Judiciary
-----------------------------------
3. (U) The Ambassador opened the event, which received some press
attention from business-oriented media outlets. Participation by
the Ukrainian judges was quite strong. A total of 26 judges, from a
mix of different courts and representing 20 of the country's 24
oblasts were in attendance. Mykola Baliuk, Judge of the Supreme
Court of Ukraine, made several presentations underlining the
importance of judicial IPR enforcement. Judge Marvin Garbis, from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Debora
Lashley-Johnson, from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and
Matthew Lamberti, Department of Justice Intellectual Property Law
Enforcement Coordinator for Eastern Europe, provided expertise from
the U.S. side. Representatives of Ukraine's State Department of
Intellectual Property also took a lead role in delivering the
training, in itself a goal of the program. Representatives of
Ukraine's Ministry of Interior and Customs Service also
participated.
IPR 101 for Judges
------------------
4. (SBU) Presentations covered copyright, trademark, and patent law,
as well as key international IPR enforcement provisions. Judge
Baliuk hit on several troublesome topics, for example urging judges
never to return pirated or counterfeit goods to the infringer, as
sometimes happens in administrative cases. The judges also heard
complaints from law enforcement officials frustrated with the lack
of severity of sentences handed down in IPR cases and with the need
to provide detailed, expert analysis for every pirated optical disk
seized, rather than just a sample. Some judges, in their turn,
expressed frustration about the weak financial penalties authorized
by current law and noted that the Ministry of Justice's State
Execution Service did not do a good job enforcing court judgments.
(Note: Ukrainian judges have no statutory authority to enforce their
decisions. End note.)
5. (SBU) There were lengthy discussions on how judges should
calculate damages in IPR cases, a tricky matter in Ukrainian law
(ref C). Lamberti commented that the Supreme Court could develop
guidelines to ensure consistency in the lower courts, and several of
the Ukrainian judges present agreed. Judge Baliuk held short of
promising such guidelines, but said that the Supreme Court was
planning to issue a resolution on IPR as part of its upcoming
Plenary Session to help clarify some procedural questions.
Comment: Targeting Judges Proves Successful
-------------------------------------------
6. (SBU) Post's input for this year's Special 301 Report (ref A)
identified judicial training as a continued priority. Post held one
training workshop for judges, prosecutors, and police in 2007 (ref
C); this latest workshop was an attempt to expand such training to
judges from the regions. Participants gave very positive feedback
on the workshop, with one judge encouraging us to hold additional
events for judges in the regions, particularly from courts of first
instance, as they tend to be less aware of IPR issues. Embassy is
working with CLDP to identify priorities for future workshops, and
judicial training is likely to remain at the top of the list.
TAYLOR