ENFORCEMENT

Recommendations

Info

Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement SECTION 4 FIG. 58: Example of International “Specialized Office” Approach. Europol and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EU IPO) joined forces on July 2016 to launch the “Intellectual Property Crime Coordinated Coalition” (IPC3). The IPC3 serves as a highly-specialized, IPdedicated resource within Europol that enjoys broad transnational reach as it supports several international operations targeting counterfeiting and piracy. IPC3 provides operational and technical support to law enforcement agencies and other partners in the EU and beyond by facilitating and coordinating cross-border investigations and enhancing the harmonization and standardization of legal instruments and operating procedures to counter IP crime globally. Supporting state and local law enforcement is also critical to combating IP theft. In coordination with the Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Source: Europol initiated the Intellectual Property Theft Enforcement Program (IPEP) in 2009, which is designed to build the capacity of state and local criminal justice systems to address criminal IP enforcement through increased prosecution, prevention, training, and technical assistance availability. The program is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of OJP. Since IPEP’s inception, OJP has awarded $22,077,022 in program grants, pursuant to Section 401 of the PRO-IP Act, which authorizes OJP to make grants to eligible state or local law enforcement entities for training, prevention, enforcement, and prosecution of IP theft and infringement crimes. Under the program, grant recipients establish and maintain effective collaboration and coordination between state and local law enforcement, including prosecutors and multijurisdictional task forces, and appropriate Federal agencies, including the FBI and United States Attorneys’ Offices. The information shared under the program includes information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution of matters involving IP offenses as they relate to violations of state and local criminal statutes. State and local enforcement agencies have received $16,785,348 in Federal support to date. In addition to supporting and increasing coordination and cooperation of enforcement efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement entities, IPEP funds national training and technical assistance (TTA) and public education campaigns. The National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) is the TTA provider for IPEP. TTA for state and local law enforcement focuses on supporting the training needs of the local IP offices and providing continuing education for the greater law enforcement community on promising IP crime investigative and prosecutorial practices, health and safety issues resulting from counterfeit products, negative economic ramifications of IP crime, and the connection between IP crime and organized crime, gangs, and terrorism. The FY 2005 Department of State Appropriations Act elevated the State Department’s Intellectual Property Division (within the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs) to office-level status and renamed it as the Office of International Intellectual Property Enforcement, with the goal of enhacing U.S. Government responsiveness to industry’s growing need for IPR protection abroad. The office works closely with U.S. diplomats serving abroad to ensure that the interests of American rights holders are represented overseas and to highlight the integral role that IPR protection plays in supporting innovation, global economic growth, and the rule of law. 11 In addition, the Department of Commerce has established the Office of Intellectual Property Rights within the International Trade Administration, an entity 126
Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator FIG. 59 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance Additional details available at: https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=64#horizontalTab2 which works to advance IPR enforcement interests in domestic and international forums through its participation in interagency and intergovernmental working groups. 12 Two other prominent examples of specialized offices are the main U.S. IP agencies, namely, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the U.S. Copyright Office. While all U.S. trading partners similarly enjoy patent, trademark, and copyright-focused offices (“Intellectual Property Offices,” or IPOs), not all countries fully utilize the IPO’s subject matter expertise beyond internal, office-based practices. The USPTO and the U.S. Copyright Office are active participants in helping to develop effective IPR enforcement policies for the United States. In the United States, the USPTO is responsible for advising the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, on National and certain international IP policy issues. In addition, the USPTO is responsible for advising Federal departments and agencies on matters of domestic and international intellectual property policy, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. 13 Within the USPTO, the Office of Policy and International Affairs (OPIA) has primary responsibility for analyzing, developing and advocating intellectual 2015 Forum: “Promoting IPR Enforcement Policy in Latin America: The Role of the IPO” In April 2016, the White House Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) and the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) co-hosted an event that brought together senior leadership from IP offices (IPOs) representing 12 countries—Belize, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and the United States—for the first-ever forum of its kind on enforcing intellectual property rights (IPR) in Latin America. The forum explored the role of the Latin American IPOs in promoting IPR enforcement and policy on the national level in order to produce a set of recommendations for participants on implementing these strategies in their respective jurisdictions. See International Trademark Association, “Workshop Fosters Collaboration Among Latin American IP Offices on Enforcement” (May 1, 2016) accessed from http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/ Pages/IP_Office_Workshop_7108.aspx SECTION 4 127
Page 1:
U.S. JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN ON INTELL
Page 6 and 7:
B. In Furtherance of a Healthy Doma
Page 9:
PREAMBLE A Reflection on Creativity
Page 12 and 13:
Senior Advisory Committee Establish
Page 14 and 15:
INTRODUCTION IP-intensive industrie
Page 16 and 17:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Services, the Dep
Page 18 and 19:
While seeking to be thorough, the S
Page 20 and 21:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Advertising B
Page 23 and 24:
1 THE GLOBAL SCALE OF INTELLECTUAL
Page 25 and 26:
INTRODUCTION The story of intellect
Page 27 and 28:
Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
« Office of the Intellectual Prope
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65:
Page 68 and 69:
SECTION 2 CONTENTS HELPING TO PROMO
Page 70 and 71:
Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85: Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 99 and 100: 3 SECURE AND FACILITATE LEGITIMATE
Page 101 and 102: INTRODUCTION U.S. and international
Page 103 and 104: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 121 and 122: ENDNOTES Office of the Intellectual
Page 125: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 128 and 129: SECTION 4 CONTENTS PROMOTE FRAMEWOR
Page 162 and 163: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to, an
show all

ENFORCEMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?