[A2k] Signature campaign: Open letter to the President of the CII
Pranesh Prakash
pranesh@cis-india.org
Fri Aug 14 13:11:03 2009
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
*Apologies for cross posting.
Dear All,
Greetings!
This is with reference to a signature campaign that we are currently
undertaking to express the Indian civil societies' strong disapproval of
certain intellectual property (IP) enforcement initiatives of the
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). It is of immense concern to all
of us since higher norms of IP enforcement necessarily undermine
various other rights of the people at large, including the right to
access to medicines and access to knowledge. It is disheartening to note
that the CII being an Indian industry organization is hosting the Third
International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th
August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand
Protection Committee (QBPC), China (QBPC comprises over 80 MNCs).
There are serious credibility issues presented by CII's decision to
organize this event. Considering that the Indian Government and the
global civil society is fighting another battle against the upward
ratchet of IP enforcement norms at various international forums, it is
really unfortunate that the CII and other major industry organizations
are acting as adversaries of public interest.
Outlined below (also attached in pdf format) is an open letter to the
President of the CII explaining various concerns of the Indian civil
society. We request the members of Indian civil society (either in their
personal capacity or in their organizational capacity) to communicate
their support of this cause and sign the letter below. Please also
forward this mail to those in India that you feel would wish to express
their solidarity against this attempt to increase IP enforcement. We
are planning to send this letter to the President of CII and various
other functionaries at 16:00 on Monday, August 17, 2009.
Kindly send your confirmations by 13:00 IST on the 17th of August, 2009
to centad@centad.org <mailto:centad@centad.org> or pranesh@cis-india.org.
Thanks,
Trade and Public Health Team,
Centre for Trade and Development, New Delhi
and
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
**********************
*An Open Letter to the President of Confederation of Indian Industry
(CII) on the Third **International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy*
To
*Mr. Venu Srinivasan
*The President
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
The Mantosh Sondhi Centre=E2=80=A823,
Institutional Area, Lodi Road=E2=80=A8
New Delhi - 110 003
Dear Mr. Srinivasan,
We understand that Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is hosting the
Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th
August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand
Protection Committee (QBPC), China. As stated in the invitation letter
the primary objectives of the Conference are: 1) to initiate coordinated
action for cross border enforcement; 2) to highlight the importance of
protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); 3) to combat the
growing threat of piracy and counterfeiting; 4) to facilitate a global
meeting of customs officials across the globe; 5) to recommend the
creation and setting up of a governmental =E2=80=9CNational Brand Protectio=
n=E2=80=9D
group; 6) to serve as a forum to discuss legal guidelines related to the
prosecution of IPR infringement and to eliminate =E2=80=98loopholes=E2=80=
=99 within the
existing laws; and 7) to strengthen cooperation between enforcement
agencies and chalk out strategies for enforcement agencies a industry
action both at national & international level. We also understand that
this International Conference is part of CII Intellectual Property
Division=E2=80=99s special initiative on enforcement of IPRs. As part of th=
e
special initiative CII aims at =E2=80=9Cengaging government to create condu=
cive
legislative measures, policy levels reform and impressing [upon them] to
adopt stringent enforcement initiatives and exemplary punitive and
monetary measures to further safeguard and secure the interest of
industry=E2=80=9D. CII also wants to =E2=80=98create a global partnership t=
o synergise
efforts of international community and to support and participate in
India's efforts in combating counterfeiting both at domestic and
international levels. We, the undersigned, representing various civil
society organizations in India, write this letter to express our strong
reservation on the conference as well as on CII=E2=80=99s special initiativ=
e on
IP enforcement. Without raising any question on CII=E2=80=99s right to orga=
nize
events we would like to convey the following concerns with regard to the
conference and CII=E2=80=99s initiative on IP enforcement.
Many of the above mentioned objectives of the conference and the special
initiative are directed towards the enhancement of intellectual property
(IP) standards like coordinated action on border measures, common
guidelines for prosecution of IP infringement, exemplary punitive and
monetary measures, etc. In other words, enhancement of IP standards
means using more public money to protect private rights; very often
protecting the monopoly over intangible property rights of
multi-national corporations (MNCs).
As you may be aware, MNCs and their developed country hosts are
currently engaged in the implementation of a multi-pronged strategy to
enhance IP enforcement standards.[1] <#_ftn1> This is similar to the
MNC=E2=80=99s initiatives in the mid 80s to enhance international IP protec=
tion,
which resulted in the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS). Unlike the 80s, now MNCs and developed
countries use multiple forums to pursue the objective of enhancement of
IP enforcement standards. Some developed countries have unilaterally
enhanced their IP enforcement strategy to force other countries,
especially developing countries, to accept the same through various
multilateral organizations, namely the World Customs Organization (WCO),
World Health Organization (WHO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), Interpol,
WIPO and WTO. Developed countries are also using Free Trade Agreements
(FTAs), Bilateral Agreements on IP Enforcements as well as financing
lobbyist studies, conferences and policy recommendations to impose
higher IP enforcement standards. These efforts for the enhancement of IP
enforcement standards are a matter of grave concern for the people of
developing countries and their governments. By partnering with the US
Embassy and Quality Brand Protection Committee of China (QBPC)[2]
<#_ftn2> in the organization of this conference, CII is allowing itself
to play in the hands of MNCs and some developed countries, whose
interests do not match with that of India industries and that of the
Indian people.
As you are aware, the Government of India is taking a very strong
position in resisting enhancement of IP enforcement standards in all the
multilateral forums. India along with like-minded developing countries
successfully pushed back TRIPS Plus[3] <#_ftn3> IP enforcement agenda at
WCO and WHO. India is also trying its level best to convince other
developing countries the need to stick to TRIPS-compliant standards
rather than adopting TRIPS Plus enforcement standards. In the wake of
the controversial generic drug seizures by EU customs authorities, India
has also raised the issue of TRIPS Plus IP enforcement standards
contained in the EU IP Enforcement Directive at least two times at the
TRIPS Council.[4] <#_ftn4> The Indian political leadership has
unequivocally raised its concern over the enhancement of IP enforcement
standards at other fora also.[5] <#_ftn5> In adopting this stance, the
Government of India has cited public interest as well as the operating
freedom of Indian industry as its justifications.[6] <#_ftn6> By
partnering at this vital stage with an MNC lobby group and a heeding to
developed country governments, CII is not acting in furtherance of the
legitimate public interests of Indian domestic industry and the Indian
people.
It is a well-evidenced fact that TRIPS plus enforcement standards
adversely impact not only legitimate trade between nations (as shown by
the EU seizures) but also the day-to-day life of millions of people
especially in India and other developing countries.[7] <#_ftn7>
Unfounded IP enforcement measures would adversely impact access to life
saving medicines and educational materials. Thus the IP enforcement
measures also have the potential to deny right to development to people
in the global South. Hence an organization like CII should not view IP
as only a business tool but should look at the larger scheme of things
especially in the social and economic realities of India. In fact, by
promoting enhancement of IP enforcement standards CII is advocating a
policy, which would violate the right to health, the right to knowledge,
as also the right to development.
We would also like to point out that Indian pharmaceutical industry is
one of the victims of TRIPS Plus IP enforcement standards. In 2008
alone, 17 consignments[8] <#_ftn8> were seized in transit at Europe
using the EU Directive on IP Enforcement, which allows seizure of goods
in transit.[9] <#_ftn9> These consignments were being exported from
developing countries (such as India and Brazil) to other developing
countries, and the contents of the consignments are perfectly legal in
both the exporting as well as the importing nations. These highly
questionable seizures resulted in the crisis of health programmes as it
resulted in delays in and prohibitive costs of access to life-saving
medicines in developing countries of Africa and Latin America. CII can
barely claim to be representative of the interests of Indian industry if
it ignores such episodes and partners with self-promoting MNCs and
developed countries=E2=80=99 governments to advocate for the enhancement of=
IP
enforcement standards.
In the light of above-mentioned issues, we request you to consider the
following:**
*Rejecting the TRIPS Plus enforcement agenda in toto.* We demand CII,
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI),
Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry(ASSOCHAM) and other Indian
business associations to reject any and all attempts of bringing in a
TRIPS Plus enforcement agenda in India, in the interests of Indian
industry and the Indian people.**
*Completely disengaging from any collaborative efforts with foreign
institutions to further TRIPS Plus standards of IP protection in India
and also abstaining from any engagements on the anti-counterfeiting
efforts with foreign agencies. *CII should attempt to engage with
domestic institutions and build national consensus before engaging with
foreign institutions with the claim of representation of Indian industry.**
*Take necessary proactive steps to safeguard the interests of access to
medicine and access to knowledge along with the interest of the Indian
domestic industry.*
*Participate in a more creative discussion on IP and development rather
than simply accepting the simplistic and largely discredited view that
stronger IP regime leads to more innovation and is a necessary condition
for socio-economic development.*
CC:*Anjan Das
*Senior Director & Head
Technology, Innovation, IPR & Life Sciences
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
Plot No. 249-F, Sector-18; Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon-122015, Haryana
End notes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> See Susan K Sell, /The Global IP Upward Ratchet,
Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play.
/Aavailable at
http://www.iqsensato.org/wp-content/uploads/Sell_IP_Enforcement_State_of_Pl=
ay-OPs_1_June_2008.pdf
[2] <#_ftnref2> QBPC barely qualifies as a representative of Chinese
interest, as it is comprised of more than 180 multinational member
companies. See
http://www.qbpc.org.cn/About_QBPC/Introduction/2008-08/01_116.html.
[3] <#_ftnref3> =E2=80=98TRIPS plus=E2=80=99 refers to any protection of I=
PRs that
surpasses the standards and requirements spelt out in WTO-TRIPS provisions.
[4] <#_ftnref4> See Jonathan Lyn, /India Brazil raise EU drug Seizures
issue at WTO,/ available at
http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/04232721/India-Brazil-raise-EU-drug-se.html
[5] <#_ftnref5>/ //Indian Minister of State for External Affairs
Broaches Seizures of Generics at ECOSOC/, available at
http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/07/08/india-ecosoc-seizures/#more-2404
[6] <#_ftnref6> Indian Commerce Secretary=E2=80=99s Speech to the African
Community Ambassadors. available at http://www.centad.org/focus_77.asp.
[7] <#_ftnref7> For two very recent examples, see /Intellectual
Property Enforcement: International Perspectives/, Xuan Li & Carlos
Correa (eds.) (2009); Anand Grover, /Report of the Special Rapporteur on
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health, /A/HRC/11/12 (2009).
[8] <#_ftnref8> Jyoti Datta, /16 out of 17 drug consignment seizures in
the Dutch were from India available at
/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/06/08/stories/2009060851700300.ht=
m
[9] <#_ftnref9> The EC Regulation No 1383/2003 allows for seizure of
goods in transit.
--
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
--
[ letter_to_CII.pdf of type application/pdf deleted ]
--
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[ signature.asc of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]