Currently, there is a paradox in the European textile industry:
while the European Union has provided an excellent framework for design
protection, we see only very few companies, and even fewer SMEs in the sector,
proactively using intellectual property to develop their business.
To address the existing gap between what academics like Professor
Preet consider best practice legislation for design protection and the
de facto use of IP protection, the
European Commission has asked to have practical guides prepared within the
IPeuropAware project funded by the CIP Action "IP Awareness and Enforcement
Modular Based Actions for SMEs" and managed by EACI.1
A question that arises when trying to answer whether we are asking
the right question in these guides is whether the state of IP legislation is
strong enough, i.e. it may well be that SMEs in the target area do not protect
their innovation because the regulatory framework is not strong enough. In this
case, the guides would be of no use.
A great regulatory framework that is
underleveraged?
This is clearly not the case.
On the contrary, research suggests that the design protection
framework provided by the EU is stronger than that in the USA. Preet argues
that the registered and unregistered Community Design Law in the EU provides
the ideal solution for textiles design because it extends protection to designs
that have a different overall appearance. For this reason, the EU has made it
easy for firms to protect its designs in its member states by providing
protection for up to 25 years. In the US, haute
couture receives no protection under IP law. The Community Design
Regulation provides a swift, cost-effective design protection through
registered rights and unregistered rights.2
Woodruff compares privatisation procedures and the respect for
property rights in Poland and Russia and argues that Poland offers a more
robust framework. Legal certainty for shareholder rights is greater in Poland
than in Russia because, in Poland, the negotiation between potential
shareholders and current enterprise stakeholders precedes privatisation,
whereas in Russia privatisation procedures pits these groups against one
another.3
Professor Vanecek offers interesting findings on the use of the IP
system by Czech SMEs. His paper has inclusive data on the use of IP by textile
firms in eight EU countries: Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Finland, Belgium, Ireland, and Greece. He looks at EPO and USPTO
applications and identifies a strong gap between the use of IP by firms
operating in G8 countries, such as Germany, and Eastern European countries. He
looks at patent application/capital in the textiles sector and offers an
indicator for Germany of 52.2, compared to 5.9 in the Czech Republic. He thinks
that this strong gap is the result of a lack of IP awareness in his home
country and insufficient investment in innovation. His study therefore
underlines the need for such guides.4
The way to go!
The literature review clearly provides sound reasons for this work
(the guides). Based on a thorough review of academic papers, the press, market
studies and reports from international organisations, it may be said that it
will help resolve a complex problem faced by firms operating in the
knowledge-based economy: namely, how to take ownership of the IP system and, in
this sense, leverage innovation as an engine of growth.
The level of IP protection provided by the EU is sound and reliable,
however awareness on how to use the IP system is clearly lacking. The guides we
are working on will help bridge the awareness gap, particularly in Eastern
European member states and, in this sense, reverse commonly criticised patterns
of globalisation. Not by blocking the IP system, but by using its very
mechanisms to provide an equal playing field for firms operating in the most
varied market contexts.
In this sense, it is important to stress that the guides not only
look at IP as defensive right, but also offer an overview of how IP may be used
as a business asset. Design innovation is the cornerstone of the textile
industry; illustrating how this core driver of business can be better
protected, leveraged and optimised is crucial for the survival of the industry.
These guides should thus meet the core requirements of the target sectors. It
is great to know that the the kick-off conference, where the guides will
publicly be made available for the firts time will be held on 27th
October 2009 in Brussels so to raise further awareness of the issue5!
Afterwards, a series of awareness seminars will be organised in 13
selected European countries and all information will be made available on
www.innovaccess.eu.
1.
For more information about the guides, see the article “How
to make ends meet – Sectoral IPR Guides for SMEs”, IPR Helpdesk
Bulletin, No. 41 January – March 2009 -
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/newsletter/41/html/EN/IPRTDarticleN10143.html;
for more information about the IPeuropAware project that the guides are part
of, see INNOVACCESS Web Site at
http://www.innovaccess.eu .(«)
2.
K. Preet, “Why America needs a European fashion
police”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice, No. 3, 2008,
pp.386-392.(«)
3.
D. M. Woodruff, “Property rights in context:
Privatization’s legacy for corporate legality in Poland and
Russia”, Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), No.
38/ 4, 2004.(«)
4.
J. Vanacek, “Patenting propensity in the Czech
Republic”, Scientometrics, No. 76/ 2, 2008, pp. 381-394.(«)
5.
INNOVACCESS will contain relevant information regarding the
kick-off conference, as well as the list of additional seminars planned in 13
other European countries.(«)
|
