DTI debunks allegations of IPR alliance

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO), an attached agency of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), is calling for the removal of the Philippines from the so-called 301 watchlist of the US which pinpoints countries where the US has an unfavorable view on intellectual property rights enforcement.

The IPO is taking strong exception to the recent report of the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) which is accusing the Philippines of weak enforcement of IP laws.

The Philippines would then be violating its commitment under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement.

IIPA has urged the US trade representative (USTR) to upgrade the status of the Philippines from the ordinary to the priority watchlist.

According to IPO director general Emma C. Francisco, the IIPA report is "in effect a call on American businessmen to stay away from the Philippines, or even for the US government to exclude the country from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) which grants duty-free access to developing countries."

Francisco explained that the Philippines enjoys duty-free benefits under the US GSP which might be jeopardized by the 301 issue.

She said that while the country’s GSP exports of the US comprise less than 10 percent of the total export to that country, the level is substantial with the duty-free imports from the Philippines amounting to $821 million in 1999.

Francisco said that "instead of banking on the US 301 review in a bid to coerce the Philippine authorities, the IIPA and its members should devote their time, energy and resources toward protection and enforcement of their IP rights."

In fact, Francisco blames the IP owners themselves for the continuing violations owing to their lack of interest and perseverance in pursuing their case against violators.

The IPO head said that the Philippine government, through its prosecution and enforcement arms, is "being used as one huge collecting agent" by IP owners who initially file cases only to abandon the same when they have reached amicable settlement with the violators.