IBA Urges Creation Of More Specialist IP Courts
by Robin Pilgrim, LawAndTax-News.com, London
06 October 2004
The International Bar Association last week published a draft report examining
the existence and utilisation of specialised intellectual property (IP) courts
and judges in 78 countries.
Explaining the reasoning behind the survey, which is thought to be the first
of its kind, chairman of the IBA's Intellectual Property and Entertainment Committee,
Clive Elliott observed that:
"Issues of access, competence, efficiency and cost arise in different
contexts around the world. What we are trying to do is indentify solutions that
are appropriate and workable in most countries regardless of their size or level
of sophistication."
The report, which will be discussed at the forthcoming IBA conference in New
Zealand, found that just three countries have specialised IP courts, namely
the United Kingdom, Thailand, and Turkey.
Twenty-five countries were found to have courts of general jurisdiction with
specialised divisions for IP matters or specialist judges with IP backgrounds
and expertise in IP cases. These were: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Belgium,
China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel,
Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore,
Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
In addition, eleven countries have appellate courts that have exclusive jurisdiction
to hear IP cases and also hear other types of appeals (Chile, Colombia, Finland,
France, India, Korea, Panama, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United
States), whilst Austria, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland have commercial
divisions at the lower and high court levels that hear IP cases in addition
to other business disputes.
The report put forward several recommendations for improving the options available
to those seeking to protect their intellectual property internationally. These
included creating specialised IP divisions in general courts where they do not
already exist, providing improved training for judges, and encouraging them
to specialise more, and pushing for greater information exchange amongst members
of the judiciary dealing with IP-related matters.
.
|
|