Intellectual property law in Southeast Asia : Recent legislative and institutional developments

Over the last few decades, countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) all had to revise their intellectual property systems. These revisions resulted at first from bilateral pressure of major trading partners such as the US and EU, then from the WTO-TRIPS Agreement and more recently from bilateral Free Trade Agreements. To observe the IP developments in ASEAN over this period is interesting, because this group of countries covers developed (Singapore), developing as well as least developed countries. All countries had to reform their outdated laws from the colonial era in very short time. However, in comparison to the early 1980s, important differences with regards to intellectual property policies have emerged in recent years.

This article will briefly sketch the developments in individual ASEAN countries and after that examine some broader trends in law making, IP administration, enforcement and the court system. It concludes that the ASEAN enlargement process has created a very diverse picture with regards to IP. With the fast pace of the legislative development, countries have been struggling to keep up with the creation of the institutional and administrative framework. Progress in the ASEAN harmonisation process has been limited. Statistics indicate that some of the new laws have been reasonably well received at the domestic level, while the patent sector remains foreign dominated.

Courting kazaa : judicial approaches towards P2P networks in the US and Australia

As with the litigation involving its predecessor Napster, cases involving the Australian based P2P service Kazaa and its US licensees Grokster and Morpheus required from the courts to balance the legitimate interests of the computer industry and the public in new and advanced technologies on the one hand and of so-called "content providers " of the media and entertainment industry on the other hand. The article examines, how US and Australian courts have approached this task and, in spite of differences in the legal frameworks of the two countries, have reached similar conclusions.

Sui generis protection for plant varieties and traditional agricultural knowledge : the example of India

Explores the sui generis protection of intellectual property, particularly patents, in biotechnology and traditional agricultural knowledge under Indian law. Focuses on the impact of amendments to the Patents Act 1970 and of the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers' Rights Act 2001 and Biological Diversity Act 2002.

Traditional knowledge, biological resources and intellectual property rights in Asia : the example of the Philippines

The relationship between traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights has become a topic for intensive debates at the national level, in various international settings and within and among different UN agencies, including the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), UNESCO, UNCTAD and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). However, a consensus on a definition of traditional knowledge has yet to emerge due to persistent differences in perception. On the one hand, indigenous communities hold locally specific and holistic views of traditional knowledge, which are difficult to place within the framework of current intellectual property rights. Governments of developing countries, on the other hand, mostly focus on clearly defined aspects of traditional knowledge and their interpretation in the national interest and as expressions of national culture. Asian governments, in particular, have advocated the latter view. The Philippines provide an exception due to a tradition of recognising indigenous people as separate "cultural communities". However, the practical implementation of so-called "community intellectual rights" thus far is largely confined to access and benefit sharing rules, compensation requirements for traditional farmers and defensive protection measures such as digital libraries documenting traditional knowledge.

The recognition and protection of well-known trade marks in Indonesia

Legal context The recognition and protection of well-known marks in Indonesia has improved over the last few years for a variety of reasons.

Key points First, the Asian Crisis resulted in the creation of a Commercial Court, which is a clear improvement over the previously responsible District Courts. Secondly, the increasingly frequent publication of court decisions has improved transparency and consistency of those decisions. Well-known marks are now clearly protected against use for similar goods/services. Protection is extended to dissimilar goods/services by applying Article 16(3) TRIPS directly or by arguing that registration occurred in bad faith. Nevertheless, decisions thus far concern almost exclusively revocation and invalidity of registrations. Civil remedies such as damages and interim injunctions are hardly used, because the outdated civil procedural law has not familiarised judges with such legal instruments. Clearing the register of infringing registrations is another matter of concern. Cancellation for non-use for three consecutive years can be difficult, because the plaintiff is required to provide evidence of the last use in the production of the goods/services rather than in the course of trade more generally.

Practical significance While it has become much easier to protect well-known marks in Indonesia, much work remains to be done regarding the procedural framework of civil infringement proceedings and regarding the clearing of the register.