New research has for the first time established a statistical ranking of 22 of the world's leading economies and trading nations in relation to protecting and enforcing intellectual property.
The Global Intellectual Property Index (GIPI), launched today by European law firm Taylor Wessing, presents a statistical comparison to date of how jurisdictions are viewed in terms of ‘IP competitiveness’. Jurisdictions are rated as places in which to obtain, exploit, enforce and attack the three main types of IP: trademarks, patents and copyright.
It is most useful to consider the results of the GIPI in terms of five groupings or ‘tiers’ of IP competitiveness. These groupings are shown below:
The Tiers of IP Competitiveness
Tier 1
UK, USA, Germany
Tier 2
Netherlands, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, France
Tier 3
Israel, Japan, Spain, South Africa, South Korea
Tier 4
Poland, Dubai (UAE), Italy, Mexico
Tier 5
India, Brazil, Russia, China
Key findings
Cost does not seem to be a major factor in the rankings – the jurisdictions where costs of obtaining and enforcing IP are high are generally towards the top of the GIPI rankings;The tier 1 jurisdictions - UK, USA and Germany perform strongly in all three areas of IP. The UK heads up both the trademark and patents index and is second in the copyright index. The USA leads the copyright index but is down in 6th place for trademarks. Germany is in the top three in all three indices. With the USA being in 6th place in the trademark index, the UK, Germany & the Netherlands are the only jurisdictions to appear in the top 5 in all indices.There is a wide variance in the ratings of European jurisdictions, despite the intended harmonisation of laws within the EU. The UK and Germany are tier 1 jurisdictions whereas Poland and Italy are in tier 4.Seven of the nine jurisdictions in tiers 1 and 2 of the GIPI have legal systems based on common law.The BRIC jurisdictions (Brazil, Russia, India, China) of developing countries form tier 5 of the GIPI. They are at the bottom of the list in all four indices and by a significant margin. China is bottom of each index although several questionnaire respondents noted that China has made significant strides in recent years at improving its IP protection systems. At present the perception of the effectiveness of those systems appears to be lagging and it remains to be seen whether China’s position improves going forward. Brazil, Russia and India are still seen as very poor jurisdictions in which to manage all forms of IP.The highest Asian jurisdiction is Singapore in tier 2. Singapore is rated significantly higher than the other Asian jurisdictions, with Japan and Korea in tier 3. Japan is the second Asian jurisdiction but is 50 points behind Singapore. China is in tier 5 and is more than 300 points away from the tier 1 jurisdictions.The size of a jurisdiction (measured by GDP) seems to have little effect on the ability to manage IP. Both large and small jurisdictions can get IP management right if they are generally places where the rule of law is highly regarded;IP competitiveness is not a ‘zero-sum’ game where one jurisdiction’s gain is another’s loss. Jurisdictions that manage IP well are seen as mutually supportive and encourage better IP management globally.
Michael Frawley, Managing Partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, comments:
"We live and work in a global market and IP is a global issue. For companies operating in this market, safeguarding IP in today’s developing economies is just as important as securing protection in the developed ones."
"IP law is developing rapidly in order to meet the challenges of the ever increasing change in technology and no jurisdiction can afford to be complacent about how its legal system accommodates these changes
"There is much anecdotal comment about how well IP is protected in different jurisdictions and what needs to be done about it. The Global IP Index provides real data based on a combination of objective factors and the knowledge and experience of people operating in the field. We hope that the Index will make a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate in this vitally important area."
The Global Intellectual Property Index (GIPI), launched today by European law firm Taylor Wessing, presents a statistical comparison to date of how jurisdictions are viewed in terms of ‘IP competitiveness’. Jurisdictions are rated as places in which to obtain, exploit, enforce and attack the three main types of IP: trademarks, patents and copyright.
It is most useful to consider the results of the GIPI in terms of five groupings or ‘tiers’ of IP competitiveness. These groupings are shown below:
The Tiers of IP Competitiveness
Tier 1
UK, USA, Germany
Tier 2
Netherlands, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, France
Tier 3
Israel, Japan, Spain, South Africa, South Korea
Tier 4
Poland, Dubai (UAE), Italy, Mexico
Tier 5
India, Brazil, Russia, China
Key findings
Cost does not seem to be a major factor in the rankings – the jurisdictions where costs of obtaining and enforcing IP are high are generally towards the top of the GIPI rankings;The tier 1 jurisdictions - UK, USA and Germany perform strongly in all three areas of IP. The UK heads up both the trademark and patents index and is second in the copyright index. The USA leads the copyright index but is down in 6th place for trademarks. Germany is in the top three in all three indices. With the USA being in 6th place in the trademark index, the UK, Germany & the Netherlands are the only jurisdictions to appear in the top 5 in all indices.There is a wide variance in the ratings of European jurisdictions, despite the intended harmonisation of laws within the EU. The UK and Germany are tier 1 jurisdictions whereas Poland and Italy are in tier 4.Seven of the nine jurisdictions in tiers 1 and 2 of the GIPI have legal systems based on common law.The BRIC jurisdictions (Brazil, Russia, India, China) of developing countries form tier 5 of the GIPI. They are at the bottom of the list in all four indices and by a significant margin. China is bottom of each index although several questionnaire respondents noted that China has made significant strides in recent years at improving its IP protection systems. At present the perception of the effectiveness of those systems appears to be lagging and it remains to be seen whether China’s position improves going forward. Brazil, Russia and India are still seen as very poor jurisdictions in which to manage all forms of IP.The highest Asian jurisdiction is Singapore in tier 2. Singapore is rated significantly higher than the other Asian jurisdictions, with Japan and Korea in tier 3. Japan is the second Asian jurisdiction but is 50 points behind Singapore. China is in tier 5 and is more than 300 points away from the tier 1 jurisdictions.The size of a jurisdiction (measured by GDP) seems to have little effect on the ability to manage IP. Both large and small jurisdictions can get IP management right if they are generally places where the rule of law is highly regarded;IP competitiveness is not a ‘zero-sum’ game where one jurisdiction’s gain is another’s loss. Jurisdictions that manage IP well are seen as mutually supportive and encourage better IP management globally.
Michael Frawley, Managing Partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, comments:
"We live and work in a global market and IP is a global issue. For companies operating in this market, safeguarding IP in today’s developing economies is just as important as securing protection in the developed ones."
"IP law is developing rapidly in order to meet the challenges of the ever increasing change in technology and no jurisdiction can afford to be complacent about how its legal system accommodates these changes
"There is much anecdotal comment about how well IP is protected in different jurisdictions and what needs to be done about it. The Global IP Index provides real data based on a combination of objective factors and the knowledge and experience of people operating in the field. We hope that the Index will make a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate in this vitally important area."
For a detailed breakdown of the IP Index including rankings, country analysis and commentary on the findings, rationale and implications, please click here
No comments:
Post a Comment