Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

H.E. Ambassador Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter (South Africa)
13 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: MAKING MSMES COMPETITIVE - MAKING MSMES COMPETITIVE THROUGH INCLUSIVE PROTECTION OF VARIOUS IPS

505.   Firstly, on behalf of the co-sponsors of this agenda item, this delegation would like to briefly introduce the background and some possible discussion points of this agenda item in accordance with the document IP/C/W/667. 506.   It is widely recognized that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) play key roles in most economies and are important as major sources of innovation, industrial competitiveness and international trade. In emerging markets, small companies, such as start-ups, are able to create innovative products and services and to respond quickly to drastic changes in technology and industrial structures. 507.   As the intrinsic value of intangible assets has increased in importance for industry and business in recent years, the ratio of intellectual property in overall corporate value also has steadily risen. Since MSMEs often face the challenge of obtaining financial support to develop their businesses, protection of IPs and developing valuable IP portfolios may therefore help MSMEs to enhance their corporate value and be better positioned to secure funding. 508.   The competitive features of products and services may be diversified in terms of not only technological aspects but also designs and trademarks. In particular, such technological aspects can be protected by patents or trade secrets, and designs may be protected by industrial designs or copyright as well as against acts of unfair competition. In any case, business competitiveness is also acquired by branding strategies that rely on the use of trademarks. Thus, valuable IP portfolios may include various types of IP such as patents, designs, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets. 509.   However, most MSMEs lack IP awareness, and human and financial resources and experience in developing IP strategies, registering IP rights not comprehensively considering their IPs. They also lack resources and experience in enforcing against infringement acts based on their IPs. 510.   Given these circumstances, it would be beneficial for Members to share pertinent knowledge and experiences on how MSMEs can develop their businesses through building and achieving the highest possible quality IP portfolio, composed of various types of IP, and how governments can support MSMEs to expand their operations by encouraging building such an IP portfolio. 511.   In this context, we would like to highlight the competitiveness through registered and unregistered IPs, such as patents and trade secrets. Each type of IP has distinct validity requirements and provides different forms of protection in terms of time span and scope of the rights conferred. Accordingly, it is necessary for industry to select and combine the appropriate measures to protect competitive technologies or other intellectual assets. In this regard, governments can play an important role in providing IP education as well as opportunity of access to IP professionals to raise companies' awareness or knowledge regarding distinct features of each IPs and various avenues for enforcement. Furthermore, governments can also support strategic IP portfolio protections and enforcement by ensuring both have strong legal structures. 512.   In addition, we would like to shed light on the importance of the inclusive protection of IP rights. It should be emphasized that proportionate IP portfolios consisting of a combination of various IP rights should be based on a strategic perspective. Protecting products and services based on different types of IP rights effectively protects both business operations and investments as well as support cooperation. 513.   Based on the above backgrounds, through this topic, this delegation would like to highlight the importance of multi-layer protection through IP portfolios, and discuss how governments can support strategic IP protection through sharing information under this proposed theme. The possible issues to be discussed are included in paragraph 13 in the document.

The Council took note of the statements made.
75. The Chair said that the agenda item had been requested by Australia, Canada, Chile, the European Union, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These delegations had also submitted a communication to allow Members to prepare for the discussion. Since the circulation of the revised agenda, the Republic of Korea has been added to the co-sponsors of this item and the corresponding submission. She invited the cosponsors to introduce the communication.
76. The representatives of Japan; the United States of America; Singapore; Australia; the European Union; Ecuador; the Republic of Korea; Switzerland; Canada; the United Kingdom; El Salvador; Chinese Taipei; Philippines; Brazil; Mexico; Peru; China; and India took the floor.
77. The Council took note of the statements made.
IP/C/M/96, IP/C/M/96/Add.1