In a move that recognizes the global nature of the problems of counterfeiting and piracy and the futility of attempts on the part of individual government or body corporate to combat the same, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is on the verge of organizing an international conference on combating counterfeiting and piracy, which will be the 3rd of its kind. The early two counterparts of this conference had succeeded in increasing awareness of the aforesaid problems, encouraging the sharing of relevant information among all stakeholders and identifying potential solutions and strategies to counter the said problems. The Third Conference aims, inter alia, to share the new strategies for prohibiting international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, to provide the government and business officials with a platform and time for discussion so as to reach a feasible solution and also to discuss legal guidelines related to the prosecution of IPR Infringement. CII hopes that this conference will play an instrumental role in accelerating the training of the enforcement agencies, establishing a new standard at the national and regional levels for making available more effective civil & criminal remedies and border measures, prompting the government by way of recommendations to set up a “National Brand Protection Group”, to compile a compendium of risk management techniques relating to piracy and counterfeiting and last but not the least, encouraging the private sector to register their trademarks with Customs, and providing necessary education thereto. The conference, labelled the Third International Conference on combating Counterfeiting and Piracy, is due to take place on August 19 and 20, 2009 at the Silver Oak, Indian Habitat Centre, New Delhi and includes among its special attractions, a global meet of the Custom officials from different corners of the world, and a panel discussion regarding future strategies, which would have CEO’s of the four chosen sectors with a moderator from Media. Further details about the conference are available here.
In a rather significant development, an announcement of this conference by CII has been followed by an open letter to the CII President, MR. Venu Srnivasan, stating that enhancement of IP standards that forms part of the agenda of this conference, means using more public money to protect private rights, resulting often in protecting the monopoly over intangible property rights of multi-national corporations. Mention has also been made of the developed countries unilaterally increasing their domestic IP standards and forcing other countries to tow the line via multilateral platforms and organizations such as the World Customs Organization (WCO), World Health Organization (WHO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), Interpol, WIPO and WTO and also by way of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Bilateral Agreements on IP Enforcements as well as financing lobbyist studies, conferences and policy recommendations pertaining thereto. The scenario has been compared to the 1980s when TRIPS was born and concerns have been voiced that by partnering with the US Embassy and Quality Brand Protection Committee of China in the organization of this conference, CII is perhaps allowing itself to play in the hands of MNCs and some developed countries, whose interests do not match with that of Indian industries or the Indian population. This assumes further significance in the light of the Indian Government taking a strict stance in resisting enhancement of IP enforcement standards in all the multilateral forums, as highlighted by India’s efforts in pushing back TRIPS-plus IP enforcement agenda at WCO and WHO, the government’s activities in promoting TRIPS-compliant standards over TRIPS-plus enforcement standards and the Indian efforts in raising this issue and its connection with the EU IP Enforcement Directive at least twice in the TRIPS Council following the generic drug seizures by EU customs authorities that had sparked off a raging debate since it resulted in delays in and prohibitive costs of access to life-saving medicines in developing countries of Africa and Latin America. The letter further urges CII not to view IP as only a business tool but to perceive it from a broader perspective encompassing the socio-economic reality in India. It has also been pointed out that by promoting enhancement of IP enforcement standards, CII is in effect advocating a policy that can yield a bitter crop like violation of the right to health, the right to knowledge, as also the right to development. Among the broad suggestions contained in the letter, following deserve mention in particular:
(a) rejection of the TRIPS-plus enforcement agenda in toto;
(b) complete disengagement from any collaborative efforts with foreign institutions to further TRIPS-plus standards of IP protection in India and abstention from any engagements on the anti-counterfeiting efforts with foreign agencies;
(c) taking necessary proactive steps to safeguard the interests of access to medicine and access to knowledge along with interest of the Indian domestic industry; and
(d) participation in a more creative discussion on IP and development rather than simply accepting the simplistic and largely discredited view that stronger IP regime leads to more innovation and is a necessary condition for socio-economic development.
The signatories of this letter, which seeks to contest the aims of the aforesaid conference in part, include prominent names such as the following:
1. Centre for Trade and Development (Centad), New Delhi
2. Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
3. National Working Group on Patent Laws, New Delhi
4. Lawyers Collective (HIV/AIDS Unit)
5. All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)
6. International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), India
7. Consumers Association of India, Chennai
8. IndoJuris Law Offices, Chennai
9. All Indian People’s Science Network, New Delhi
10. Delhi Science Forum
11. Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
12. Knowledge Commons
13. Moving Republic
14. IT for Change
15. Centre for Health and Social Justice(CHSJ), New Delhi
16. Navdanya, New Delhi
17. Support for Advocacy and Training to Health Initiatives (SATHI)
18. Centre for Enquiry Into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT)
19. Initiative for Health Equity & Society
20. International Peoples Health Council ( South Asia )
21. Drug Action Forum – DHARWAD, Karnataka
22. Dr. Mira Shiva, New Delhi
23. Tina Kuriakose, PhD Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
24. Dr Gopal Dabade, Dharwad
25. Dinesh Abrol, Scientist NISTADS, CSIR, New Delhi
26. Madhavi Rahirkar, Lawyer/Consultant, Pune
27. Gautam John, Bangalore
28. Achal Prabhala, Bangalore
None of the links on the CII site appear to work.
I attended the conference, and wrote about it over at the CIS blog under the heading fallacies, lies, and video pirates. The conference had barely a sensible voice, with many comparing file sharers (pirates) to drug cartels.
It is certainly amazing that companies spend crores of rupees on marketing to increase their market share by a few per cent, but do not consider the effect anti-counterfeit measures can have on their market share, at a much lower cost. They should make partnership with anti-counterfeiting companies to protect their brand, if they are really serious about their brand.
@CS Jeena
1. Most of the people industry people present there agreed that anti-counterfeiting in the form of raids and special overt/covert signs on the packaging don’t really help. If anything, they are a small part of a larger mission for them.
2. At the conference, one could see that the people promoting raids and prosecution as an effective measure were those who conducted raids and prosecution, and the people who promoted packaging were those running packaging companies.
Thus, the “solution providers” were really thinking about themselves, not necessarily about their corporate clients or about the end consumers.
3. Your recommendation of anti-counterfeit measures is very general. What kind of anti-counterfeiting measures would you recommend?
Raids? Those are highly ineffective, and are generally PR exercises for the ground staff / IPR team to keep the higher level execs and the media happy. This was readily admitted by most companies at the CII conference.
Overt protection measures on the packaging?
This would based on the twin assumptions that a) the consumers *want* the original and currently being deceived; and b) anti-counterfeiting measures cannot be replicated.
Covert protection measures on the packaging?
This entails a much higher cost than overt protection measures (because you’ll need special equipment to check the covert anti-counterfeiting measures).
4. Could you please elaborate on how anti-counterfeiting measures (either empirically, or even theoretically) increase market share in the (predominant) situation where the consumer buys the fake good knowing that it is a fake good? Also, please clarify what you mean by “counterfeiting”. Are you talking exclusively about trademark infringement and passing off, or about patent violations as well?
The business of criticising those who beacuse of their undisputed good work are least subject to criticism, is a very lucrative way of garnering public attention, and is mostly practiced by new start-ups. Pranesh Prakash with his aforesaid comments has also showed this quality.
My only question to him is- why did you choose to make a living by criticising those who work for law enforcement, and assist police in investigating/ prosecuting black sheep. In other words, you could very well criticise those who are actually counterfeiting…but no. Your comments dare not show any disrespect to counterfeiters.
Kindly explain if we should assume that you have links with counterfeiters?