International Update Australia Georgina Hey and Alyson Poole Norton Rose Fulbright Australia By their very nature, intellectual property rights create monopolies. This can prompt concerns for competition and the public interest. Striking the correct balance between these dichotomies is a difficult task, and one which jurisdictions have varying approaches toward. The question is often posed whether intellectual property rights and the monopolies they create lead to increased innovation, or whether more free markets and increased competition is preferable. In Australia, this topic is currently up for review, after Treasurer Joe Hockey and Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson released a joint media statement on 18 August 2015, announcing that the Productivity Commission would commence an inquiry into Australia’s intellectual property arrangements. The inquiry was the result of a key recommendation of the Competition Policy Review released on 31 March 2015 (the Harper Review). Despite noting the difficulties in such a task, the Harper Review commented that “an appropriate balance must be struck between encouraging widespread adoption of new productivity-enhancing techniques, processes and systems on the one hand, and fostering ideas and innovation on the other.” The main concern for the Panel of the Harper Review was the fact that “Australia has no overarching IP policy framework or objectives guiding changes to IP protection or approaches to IP rights in the context of negotiations for international trade agreements.” In accordance with the Harper Review recommendations, Mr Hockey and Mr Billson described the purpose of the Productivity Commission inquiry, stating that “the Australian Government wishes to ensure that the intellectual property system provides appropriate incentives for innovation, investment and the production of creative works while ensuring it does not unreasonably impede further innovation, competition, investment and access to goods and services” [emphasis added] The inquiry will have a particular focus on how Australia’s current intellectual property arrangements effect investment, competition, trade, innovation and consumer welfare, with a specific examination of the scope and duration of intellectual property protection in Australia. The Productivity Commission will be consulting with both government and 6 non-government stakeholders, and public consultation is also ensuing. Intellectual property rights and the opening up of competition has been felt particularly in Australia in the pharma industry, as the Government has a financial policy of encouraging the greater use of generics (once pharmaceuticals are off patent) through certain financial schemes under the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It will be interesting to see what effect this government approach has on the Productivity Commission report, which has been driven by a key recommendation of the Harper Review. The inquiry will also pay regard to trading partner arrangements and experiences of past advanced economy intellectual property reform. These kinds of considerations could be influential to Australian reform, particularly where similar approaches are taken to that in European jurisdictions. For example, competition rules in the European Union can have significant effects on the ability of owners of intellectual property to exploit their rights, including circumstances where intellectual property licensing arrangements can be found to be unenforceable. Such restrictions are implemented in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In Australia, all businesses where intellectual property is of key relevance, including the pharma industry, will be interested to see the Productivity Commission’s report on how to balance intellectual property monopolies granted as a reward for innovation, with the need to encourage competition. provided that the rights are reregistered on the basis of applications submitted to the Russian PTO by IP right owners who had become citizens of the Russian Federation or by former Ukrainian legal entities that had been re-registered as legal entities in the Russian company register. In case they have pending Ukrainian applications, the abovementioned persons can re-file the applications in Russia in order to maintain prior rights from Ukrainian applications. Macedonia Gordana Pavlovic, Cabinet Pavlovic, Brussels and Belgrade At its session of 26 May 2015, the Parliament of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia enacted a new law on customs measures for the enforcement of IP rights, which was published in the Official Gazette on 28 May, 2015 and came into force on 5 June 2015. The implementing regulations were enacted on 25 June 2015 and published in the Official Gazette on 26 June 2015 and came into force the following day. The new legislation is modelled after EU Regulation 608/2013 concerning customs enforcement of IP rights and represents an effort on Macedonia’s part to harmonise its customs legislation with that of the European Union. Trade mark owners must now provide more information in order to establish a customs watch, but the procedure to obtain the destruction of counterfeit goods is simpler and more straightforward. Several changes to the procedure for establishing a customs watch have been introduced. First, an application can now cover several trade marks belonging to the same trade mark owner; in the past, trade mark owners had to file a separate application for a customs watch for each of their trade marks. Further, it is no longer necessary to provide a liability declaration as a separate document, as such declaration is now included in the application form. On the other hand, it is expected that the preparatory work will take more time, as trade mark owners are now required to provide more details about genuine goods and their channels of trade. It remains to be seen how this will work in practice. In addition, certain deadlines have been changed. For example, an application for customs watch renewal must be filed 30 working days before the date of expiry of the customs watch (in the past, this deadline was less strict). Further, in case of ex officio seizure of suspected counterfeit goods, the trade mark owner has four working days to Crimea PETOSEVIC The deadline for filing revalidation requests for IP rights originally registered in Ukraine and owned by the parties permanently residing or located in Crimea has been moved from 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2016. On 22 July 2014, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin signed a law regulating IP protection on the territory of the Crimean Peninsula, i.e., the Federal law on the additional amendments to the Federal Law on the introduction into effect of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to the law, Russia recognizes the exclusive rights to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trade marks, service marks and appellations of origin that were originally registered in Ukraine and owned by the parties permanently residing or located in Crimea,