Category: United States

Disney and Canadian DJ Spar Over U.S. Mouse-Head Design Trademark

Check out my recent guest post on UK IP blog The IPKat on Disney’s trademark dispute with Canadian DJ and electronic musician Deadmau5 over a U.S. mouse-head design trademark application. It is available at: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/04/disney-and-canadian-dj-spar-over-us.html.

Local Case Highlights Important Cross-Border Trade Secret Protection Issues Businesses Should Consider

On March 17th, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed charges in U.S. Federal Court (Western District Washington) against Russian national Alex A. Kibkalo for stealing trade secrets from software giant Microsoft under The 1996 Economic Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 1832).  Although U.S. v. Kibkalo (14-mj-00114) has yet to be ruled on, and despite involving a large multi-national business like Microsoft, this case highlights several cross-border trade secret protection issues all internationally-focused businesses should consider.

Facts. To understand these trade secret protection issues, it is important to first understand the alleged facts of this case. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Complaint, Kibkalo was a Microsoft employee, working as software architect in Microsoft’s Lebanon office. He allegedly signed a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) at the beginning of his employment.

Between July and August 2012, Mr. Kibkalo allegedly established a virtual machine on a computer server at Microsoft’s Redmond, Washington headquarters to upload unreleased versions of Microsoft’s software updates and a software development kit (collectively, “Content”) to his personal cloud storage account. The Content was secured on Microsoft’s internal system by Microsoft’s internal security program that included limited facility and electronic system access points, facility monitoring, and unique identifying signature technology to track downloaded proprietary information from the internal system. Those who accessed content on Microsoft’s internal electronic system were also required to accept Microsoft’s terms of service that included warnings concerning the proprietary nature of content on the internal system as well as reminders to Microsoft employees and others of their non-disclosure obligations pertaining to proprietary information on the system.

Once Mr. Kibkalo allegedly downloaded the Content, he allegedly transmitted links to the Content to a French technology blogger whose actual geographic location was unknown. Microsoft became aware of alleged transmission through an outside source who was contacted by the blogger about the Content. Microsoft subsequently monitored the blogger’s communication through the blogger’s Microsoft Windows Live Messenger account. An examination of the blogger’s Messenger communications and emails allegedly verified the transmission and unique identifiers in the Content.

Lessons To Be Learned. Although this fact pattern is by no means novel, it does reveal cross-border trade secret protection issues all companies should consider in order to ensure their trade secrets are protected under U.S. and foreign trade secret laws.

So what protection issues need to be considered?

Worker Protection Measures. Kibkalo emphasizes that establishing trade secret protections through contractual provisions with contractors and employees is essential for businesses to protect their proprietary information, both at home and abroad. Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)) and international legal standards (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) – Art. 39.2(c)), businesses who wish for their proprietary information to qualify for trade secret protection must take “reasonable” measures to protect such information from public disclosure. Often, this requires that a business have their employees, contractors or any other person to whom they disclose the business’ proprietary information sign a NDA (or similar agreement) prohibiting such persons from disclosing the proprietary information to others. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 521 (9th Cir. 1993).

Assuming Microsoft had an effective NDA executed with Mr. Kibkalo under U.S. law, Microsoft would likely be in a position to enforce trade secret protections in the Content under U.S. law.

Any business, regardless of its geographical location or the location of its employees or contractors, can also take similar protective measures.

Internal Security Measures. This case also highlights that international businesses need to establish internal security measures in order to effectively protect their proprietary information. Electronic and facility security measures, such as access restrictions, surveillance mechanisms have been found to be reasonable protection measures to help businesses qualify for trade secret protection. See U.S. v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815, 825 (9th Cir. 2011). As Microsoft attests to maintaining similar security measures, such measures would likely help Microsoft to obtain trade secret protection for its Content.

It goes without saying that not all businesses can afford the same level of security protections as multinational businesses like Microsoft. Yet, simple and relatively inexpensive security measures such as password protections, locking of files and computer equipment, as well as posting confidential notices on proprietary information can effectively help any business to better qualify for trade secret protection, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Online Monitoring Measures. Lastly, this case highlights the importance of online surveillance and tracking measures that businesses should consider acquiring to protect their proprietary information throughout the globe. Although generally not required to obtain trade secret protection under U.S. and/or foreign laws, the monitoring of suspected persons or entities who may be misappropriating trade secrets (*provided they are done so in compliance with applicable laws and regulations), as well as tracking software, are both effective tools to identify and prevent trade secret misappropriation. Microsoft would not have been able to determine that Mr. Kibalko had allegedly stolen the Content in the U.S. and allegedly transmitted it to the blogger outside of the U.S. without its unique identifier technology.

Granted, not all businesses have the same circumstances that allowed Microsoft to find out about the blogger and Mr. Kibalko’s alleged activities (e.g., outside sources, access to Messenger and email accounts, etc.), nor the available funds to conduct Microsoft’s extensive online surveillance activities. Yet, there are many (legal) monitoring services, investigating agencies, and identifying software products on the market that can help businesses better monitor misappropriating conduct both at home and abroad.

What’s The Takeaway? It remains to be seen how U.S. v. Kibkalo will be decided. However, this ongoing case shows that all internationally-focused businesses can develop sound practices and procedures to ensure their proprietary information is protected throughout the world. By establishing effective worker protection measures, internal security measures, as well as online monitoring measures, businesses can better protect their trade secrets from being misappropriated both at home and abroad.

U.S. Gun Manufacturer in Copyright Dispute With Italian Government Over a Gun-Toting David

Today, I had the privilege to provide a guest contribution to one of my favorite legal blogs, Art and Artifice, on a story about a U.S. weapons manufacturer who is in a copyright dispute with the Italian government over an advertisement depicting Michelangelo’s David toting the manufacturer’s rifle. Check it out at http://aandalawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/armalite-in-italys-sights-over-gun.html.

Current Lawsuit Exposes Limitations in Russia’s New Online Copyright Laws

Check out my guest posting for the UK IP blog The IPKat on the Russian publishing house Eksmo’s copyright infringement lawsuit against leading Russian social media website VKontakte, and general online copyright enforcement in the Russian Federation. It is available at: http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/fifty-shades-of-grin-and-bear-it-as.html.

New USTR and IIPA Reports Describe the Current State of IP Protections for U.S. Businesses Abroad

Over the last week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) released reports on the current state of intellectual property (IP) protections for U.S. businesses abroad. These reports provide updated insights on foreign countries and foreign retail markets (both physical and online) that have recently caused U.S. businesses the most IP protection difficulties.

Here is a summary of the reports:

IIPA 2014 Special 301 Report Submission

On February 8th, the IIPA submitted their 2014 Special 301 Report Submission to the USTR. As one of the largest U.S. lobbying groups for the copyright-based industries, the IIPA’s submission identifies the foreign countries the IIPA believes provides the most ineffective IP legal protections for U.S. businesses. The USTR’s final Special 301 Report (released annually April-May) provides reporting to the U.S. government and the general public on the countries that, according to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (19 U.S.C. § 2242(a)), deny “adequate and effective protection of [IP] rights” or “fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon [IP] protection.”

Although the U.S. government rarely imposes trade sanctions based on the Special 301 Report, a country’s listing in the final report often impacts the U.S.’ trade relations with that country and the degree to which the U.S. government initiates trade promotional activities with the same. From both a private sector and practical standpoint, the Report also represents a review of the markets that U.S. businesses have had the most IP protection challenges.

What countries did the IIPA recommend for inclusion in the 2014 Special 301 Report?

Priority Foreign Countries. For a second year in a row, the IIPA has identified Ukraine as being a “Priority Foreign Country.” This is the least favorable designation available under the Special 301 reporting system. Specifically, it identifies that country as one with the “most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices” that “have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant [U.S.] products” without making efforts to ameliorate their status. 19 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(1)). Ukraine’s designation as a Priority Foreign Country was based on a number of factors, most notably the absence of effective online copyright enforcement, and unfair and non-transparent royalty society collections. Shockingly, the classification was also based on reports of widespread software pirating by Ukrainian government agencies.

Priority Watch List and Watch List Countries. The IIPA’s Special 301 Report Submission lists Argentina, Chile, China, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand and Vietnam on the “Priority Watch List,” and Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Ecuador, Greece, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan as “Watch List” countries. Although not as a severe rating as a Priority Foreign Country, being listed as a country on the Priority Watch List or simply Watch List means that a country has potential IP protection deficiencies that require varying levels of USTR monitoring.

Newly Non-Listed Countries. It is also important to note that the IIPA has recommended removing a number of countries from the final 2014 Special 301 Report due to their improvements in IP protection. These countries include Barbados, Bolivia, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Lebanon, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets

Also, on Wednesday, the USTR released an Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets that identified physical and online markets reported by U.S. businesses and industry organizations as being engaged in substantial IP piracy and counterfeiting. The Review includes particular social media and file transferring sites hosted abroad, including sites hosted in Antigua and Barbuda, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland (possibly), Netherlands, Poland, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Vietnam. Specific physical markets in Argentina, China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, Spain, Thailand and Ukraine were also deemed notorious.

What’s The Takeaway? Every foreign market has its own IP protection challenges. U.S. businesses that are exploring expansion into new markets should consider the IIPA’s Special 301 Report Submission (as well as the USTR’s Final Special 301 Report due out later this year), and the USTR’s Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets to help evaluate the IP risks associated with such markets. Doing so can help to ensure that such businesses can better protect their IP assets as they expand.

Canadian Olympic Committee Files Lawsuit Against The North Face

I have again been given the honor of guest posting for The IPKat on a follow-up story about the Canadian Olympic Committee’s trademark dispute (now a lawsuit in British Columbia) with the U.S. outdoor clothing company The North Face. Check it out at: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/02/will-north-face-put-on-brave-face-coc.html.

Enjoy the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games!

Don’t Be Scared of Havarti! Geographical Indication Issues Exporting Businesses Should Consider

Late last month, the European Commission approved for publication (pre-registration) a geographical indication (GI) application for the Danish cheese HAVARTI. This raised concern amongst interested industry groups, and should cause concern amongst all export-focused businesses. Similar to trademarks, and particularly certification marks, GIs are legal protection granting producers of a particular type of product from a specific geographical region the exclusive right to use the geographical region’s name (or a regionally-known name) on their products and in related promotions. Being an exclusive right, GIs exclude producers from other regions from labeling and marketing similar or identical products under the same GI name. This means, for example, that a U.S. sparkling wine can never be sold as CHAMPAGNE in the EU, or a Kenyan tea as DARJEELING in India. If registered, the EU HAVARTI GI would exclude non-Danish cheese producers from labeling and promoting their Havarti cheeses in the EU as HAVARTI.

So what’s concerning about the potential EU HAVARTI GI registration for non-dairy businesses? Well, industry groups such as the Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) argue that allowing the EU HAVARTI GI application to be registered would contravene international standards by prohibiting non-Danish cheese producers from labeling and promoting their own Havarti cheeses in the EU as HAVARTI, even if they meet recognized international Havarti cheese production standards. From an intellectual property perspective, the registration would arguably expand EU GI protections to common (generic) named products. Commonly named GIs such as DIJON for mustard and CHEDDAR for cheese have traditionally been restricted from GI protection due to their common vernacular usage. HAVARTI is a widely known cheese variety this is arguably as generic as these other excluded food names. By allowing HARVARTI’s potential GI registration, the European Commission could possibly allow other generic named products to be registered as GIs, thereby hindering the promotional efforts, and ultimately success of many foreign goods in the EU.

Although the potential HAVARTI EU GI registration only directly impacts the global dairy industry and the EU market, it does underscore general issues all export-focused businesses should be aware of concerning GIs. Many businesses are unfamiliar with GIs, much less the extent to which GIs can impact their expansion and success in new foreign markets. GIs are granted legal protections in multiple countries for a wide array of goods, and can significantly impact a business’ foreign operations.

Below are some GI issues businesses should consider when entering new foreign markets:

Know the Practical Differences Between GIs and Trademarks. Before understanding what GIs restrictions a business may face in a foreign market, a business needs to recognize how GIs and trademarks differ. Unlike trademarks, GIs do not indicate or represent a individual business or their goods and services. They instead represent protections for the local conditions—natural or human-made (depending on the country)—that give products from a region their qualities and reputation. Based on these localized and natural characteristics, GIs cannot be extended, shared, or transferred to producers outside the region, and cannot be cancelled once registered. Further, in many countries that grant GIs legal protection such as the EU, member state governments, not individual producers or businesses, prosecute GI infringement claims. This means a foreign business can be assured that their unauthorized use of a registered GI in a foreign market will more likely subject them to a greater risk of legal action in that country compared to the threat of a lawsuit from a individual trademark owner.

The bottom line is that GIs prohibit exporting businesses from promoting and selling their goods in a particular country under a registered GI without much recourse.

Determine if an Export Market Recognize GIs—and to What Degree. After understanding the important differences between GIs and trademarks, businesses need to then evaluate whether the markets they wish to export to have GI protections and the extent of such protections. Nearly all countries recognize GIs for wines and alcoholic beverages through their World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. Under Articles 22 and 23 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), WTO member states are required to extend specific GI protections for wines and alcoholic beverages, and to a reduced degree other agricultural and natural products. Most common law jurisdictions (U.S., Australia, and Japan, etc.) generally only extend GI protections to wines and alcohol beverages based on their WTO commitments. Yet, many countries, including several substantial markets, have gone beyond TRIPS’ minimum standards by providing enhanced GI protections to non-wine and alcohol agricultural products, and even non-agricultural products. The EU, China, India, and Russia, among others, extend the same level of legal protection to all agricultural and natural product GIs. Brazil, China, India, Russia, and Switzerland even extend GI protections to human made goods such as handcrafts and textiles.

Determine if There are Existing GI Registrations for Your Goods. Once a business determines whether the market(s) they wish to export their goods possess GI protections, they must evaluate whether the names of the goods they wish to use on their goods and related promotions are registered GIs. To do so, businesses must examine national GI registers in such export market(s).

Below are GI registers for some of the world’s major GI jurisdictions.

Country

Governing Agency

National GI Register

Brazil

National Institute of Industrial Property (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial -INPI)

INPI GI Registry

China

General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine

GI Product List

European Union

European Commission

Database of Origin and Registration (DOOR) Database

India

The Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks

GI Registry

Russia

Federal Institute of Industrial Property

Register of Appellation of Origin of Goods

What’s the Takeaway? As the nature of GI protections are evolving in many of the world’s major markets such as the EU, businesses need to be even more aware of GIs and how they impact their operations in foreign markets. Due to the significant implications GIs have on the labeling and marketing of exported goods, businesses should work with qualified counsel to ensure that they comply with existing GI registrations to ultimately take advantage of foreign markets opportunities.

Canadian Olympic Committee in Unfair Competition Dispute with U.S. Clothing Company

Today I had the privilege to provide a guest contribution to one of my favorite intellectual property blogs, The IPKat, on a story about the Canadian Olympic Committee’s unfair competition dispute with the The North Face over the U.S. clothing company’s International Collection. Check it out at http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/01/friday-fantasies_24.html.

PR Lessons To Be Learned From Canada Goose’s Brand Enforcement

Earlier this month, a number of international news outlets reported about Canadian clothing manufacturer Canada Goose who filed a trademark and trade dress lawsuit in Canadian Federal Court against Sears’ Canadian subsidiary (Sears Canada). The suit alleges that Sears Canada was selling knock-off versions of Canada Goose’s well-known parkas. In a statement of defense to Canada Goose’s lawsuit, Sears Canada claimed that Canada Goose’s lawsuit claims were not only unfounded, but that they were intended to bully retailers and control pricing. As reported in The Globe and Mail, the statement stated “the real purpose of Canada Goose’s campaign of intimidation is to attempt to prevent or lessen sales in the marketplace of less expensive winter jackets” and “to preserve its temporary ability to sell its garments at a huge markup to the public.”

Although Sears Canada’s comments are by no means unique for a defendant in such a trademark lawsuit, the reporting of the comments in several news outlets has significant public relations (PR) implications. By claiming that Canada Goose is using trademark laws to bully retailers and control prices, Sears’ comments inevitably impact the ways retailers and the general public perceive Canada Goose and its parka jackets. Negative public perceptions about a business’ IP enforcement actions can tarnish a business’ brand and hinder its domestic and foreign market opportunities—just like the counterfeit goods that it tries to protect itself against.

As I read multiple stories about Sears’ comments, I could not help but to think that Canada Goose did not effectively counter Sears’ accusations in the public forum. Many major international clothing manufacturers such as Gucci and Burberry pursue similarly proactive cross-border trademark enforcement strategies as Canada Goose. Yet, few of the reporting news outlets carried the comments of Canada Goose’s spokespersons who gave justifications for the lawsuit against Sears Canada. In fairness, claims of bullying are likely more sensational than justifications for brand protection. However, emerging global companies like Canada Goose must ensure that they effectively communicate to the public the justifications behind their IP enforcement actions. As growing businesses set their sights on international expansion, PR becomes nearly as valuable as trademark protection to ensure that they can take advantage of domestic and foreign market opportunities.

What’s The Takeaway? Businesses who seek legal protections for their brands need to consider the PR implications of their enforcement actions. This is even more important in an international context. As many countries and cultures have negative perceptions towards litigation, businesses need their legal counsel and public relations professionals to collaborate to ensure that the public is educated about their global IP enforcement activities. Doing so can help to prevent the unintended PR consequences that global IP enforcement can bring.

What PR issues does your business face in international IP enforcement?

The TPP and Its Implications on Online Copyright Enforcement: Part II – Wikileaks

In November, Wikileaks leaked positions papers from the 18th round of Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations concerning the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the TPP agreement. The papers including positions held by TTP member states (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam) on all forms of IP protections they will provide to IP rights owners and rights holders from their countries, and in many cases, from abroad under a final TPP agreement. Several IP news outlets have provided good analyses of the position papers including The IPKat and InfoJustice, among others.

These position papers also provide updated positions TPP member states have on online copyright enforcement, and particular, the positions each country has on adopting notice and takedown online copyright enforcement systems. In order to provide an update on my October article on the TPP’s implications on online copyright enforcement, the following are positions TPP member states have adopted in the position papers on crucial issues concerning online copyright enforcement under the TPP.

Exclusive Rights

Article QQ.G.1 of the position papers propose that authors of works and producers of phonographic works will have exclusive rights concerning the reproduction of their works in any manner, including any temporary or permanent electronic reproductions and storage. Canada, New Zealand and Vietnam object to such proposed protections. Additionally, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Japan, New Zealand and Malaysia suggest in a footnote to the Article (“Article QQ.G.1 Footnote”) that exceptions and limitations to such exclusive rights should be established for:

Temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work; and which have no independent economic significance.

Alternatively, Vietnam proposes that “it shall be a matter for national legislation [of a TPP member state] to determine exceptions and limitations under which the right may be exercised.”

What’s Does This Mean? Providing authors of works and producers of phonographic works exclusive rights to all reproductions of their works, including electronic reproductions for any duration, gives such persons or entities greater direct ability to enforce rights in their works online because Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would ultimately have less discretion to reject notice complaints. As several commentators have mentioned[1], the text of Article QQ.G.1 effective eliminates fair use copyright exceptions provided under U.S. copyright law and the copyright laws of other TPP member states such as Japan.[2]  By doing so, TPP member state ISPs will have greater incentive to act on any copyright infringement on their networks, including alleged infringement notified through rights owner/holder notices, due to the likely elimination of the ISPs’ own fair use defense to contributory copyright infringement for hosting unauthorized reproductions of protected work. Although notice and takedown and notice and notice systems were adopted in TPP member states to provide ISPs safe harbor from such liability upon complying with submitted notices, many ISPs in practice do not act on such notices, by determining that their users’ unauthorized reproduction of copyright-protected works on their networks is fair use, and therefore permissible. Adoption of Article QQ.G.1 would effectively force ISPs to remove allegedly infringing content or face contributory liability for the copyright infringement of their users.

However, if TPP member states ultimately adopt the Article QQ.G.1 Footnote or Vietnam’s proposal, it is likely that they will be given the option to retain any fair use exceptions provided under their own national laws, potentially impacting the degree to which TPP member state ISPs will feel compelled to act on rights owners/holders notifications of alleged infringement.

ISP Liability

The TPP member states have divergent positions on the liability ISPs should be subject to for hosting content that infringes copyright-protected works. Article QQ.I.1 provides that the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Peru and Singapore propose (while Malaysia and Vietnam oppose) that each TPP member state provide “legal incentives for [ISPs] to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials.” Similarly, Canada proposes that each TPP member state “provide legal incentives for [ISPs] to comply, or remedies against [ISPs] who fail to comply, with any procedures established in each party’s law for: (a) effective notifications of claimed infringement; or (b) removing or disabling access to infringing material residing on its networks.”

What Does This Mean? The U.S. and Canada’s Article QQ.I.1 proposals likely leave mandating the adoption of notice and takedown systems in all TPP member states in doubt. The U.S. Article QQ.I.1 proposal provides the same ambiguous text as the February 2011 U.S. Draft IP Chapter, and the Canadian proposal goes so far as leaving the type of ISP legal incentive system each TPP member state should adopt up to its own discretion. As a result, both proposals would likely make the adoption of notice and takedown systems in TPP member states optional. For example, less forceful online enforcement systems, such as Canada’s notice and notice system provides legal incentives for ISPs to coordinate with copyright owners despite lacking the forceful effectiveness of notice and takedown systems currently available in other TPP member states such as U.S., Australia and Japan.

Despite the limitations of such proposals, mandating that TPP member states adopt some form of legal incentives for ISPs to enforce online copyright protections may likely compel TPP member states without any rights owner/holder notification systems, including Brunei Darussalam, Mexico and Vietnam, to adopt some form of rights owner/holder ISP notification system.

Notice and Takedown Procedures

The U.S., Australia, and Singapore propose in Annex to Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix) (while Canada, Malaysia and Mexico reject) adopting notice and takedown procedures as the “legal incentives” identified in Article QQ.I.1. These procedures closely resembles notice and takedown procedures provided under U.S., Australian, and Singaporean law. As a part of these procedures, copyright owners and/or rights holders whose works qualify for copyright protection in a TPP member state would have to submit a notice to an ISP that provides the following information in order to have the ISP examine and remove the infringing content in question:

    1. The identity, address, telephone number, and electronic mail address of the complaining party (or its authorized agent);
    2. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the ISP to identify and locate the material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by it or for it that is claimed to be infringing, or to be the subject of infringing activity, and that is to be removed or disabled;
    3. Information reasonably sufficient to enable the ISP to identify the copyrighted work(s) claimed to have been infringed;
    4. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
    5. A statement that the information in the notice is accurate;
    6. A statement with sufficient indicia of reliability that the complaining party is the (U.S. propose “holder”) (Australia and Singapore propose “owner”) of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, or is authorized to act on the owner’s behalf; and
    7. The signature of the person giving notice.

What Does This Mean? If a final TTP Agreement mandates that TPP member states adopt a notice and takedown system, implementing Annex to Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix) would effectively require TPP member states to adopt similar notice and takedown procedures provided under U.S., Australian, Japanese and Singaporean law. Yet, opposition from Canada, Malaysia and Mexico may make the adoption of such requirements more unlikely.

Additionally, as Australia and Singapore propose that the “owner” of the alleged infringed copyright work be the “complaining party” listed in a notice, it is unknown whether an adopted TPP notice and takedown system would allow licensees of copyright-protected works (the “holders”) to utilize notice and takedown procedures in TPP member states. Limiting such a system’s accessibility to copyright owners only may be overly burdensome for such owners, as it would force them to enforce protections in their works on behalf of their licensees.

What’s The Takeaway?

If the U.S.-backed proposals listed above are enacted in a final TPP Agreement, copyright owners and rights holders from TPP member states, and other countries, will qualify for greater online copyright enforcement protections in TPP member states. However, such proposals have multiple obstacles before being effectively implemented. Such proposals must be included in a final TPP agreement, fully implemented as legislation in each TPP member state, and effectively upheld in each TPP member state’s legal system. Time will tell whether such enhanced online copyright enforcement protections will be adopted in the final TPP Agreement and enacted in all TPP member states.


[1] See Sean Flynn, Margot Kaminski, Brook Baker, & Jimmy Koo, Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law, Dec. 6, 2011, 13, available at http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TPP-Analysis-12062011.pdf (Analysis of the TPP’s fair use exception elimination was based on the U.S.’ leaked IP chapter proposal from Feb. 2011).
[2] Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 140 (2d Cir. 2008). See Saiful Bakri Abdul Aziz, An Assessment of Fair Dealing in Malaysian Copyright Law in Comparison with the Limitation Provisions of Japanese Copyright Law – Within the Current Technology Background, 41 Hosei Riron J. of L. & Pol. 298, 300, 305 (2009), available at http://dspace.lib.niigata-u.ac.jp:8080/dspace/bitstream/10191/12583/1/41(3.4)_298-327.pdf.